By Thomas Madison
Rep. Charles Rangel, C-SPAN, 8/24/14:
“I think if you take a look and see which counties and which Congressional districts, which areas of the United States had the most prejudice, it would be the slaveholding states,” he continued. “It would be the Confederate states. It would be the states that fought the Union. Those that hated Lincoln.”
Rangel went on, saying Confederates became Dixiecrats and are today members of the Tea Party. “If you look at it today, they have changed parties,” he said. “They used to be Dixiecrats, then they became Tea Party. ”
This ethically-challenged, tax-evading Democrat fossil has been spouting racialist foolishness for years, no doubt because he believes it’s politically expedient for him to do so, and his repeated re-election suggests that he’s correct. Still, one has to wonder if he might be suffering from a Harry Reid type early dementia. He’s old enough to know that his statement is absolutely false and libelous. He knows that it is the Democrat party, the party of slavery, succession, and segregation, the party the implemented Jim Crow, that was the party of racism. It still is, and has been during his adult life.
The only former Democrat racist to “change parties” was Strom Thurmond. Sen. Robert Byrd, a former Klansman, and one time Senate Majority Leader, remained a Democrat until his death. Historians looking at voting patterns in the South, most notably, Gerald Alexander in “The Myth of the Racist Republicans”, suggest that former Confederate states turned from Democrat to Republican because of the candidacy of Dwight Eisenhower. Charlie, you are certainly old enough to remember these events. Have you ever heard the expression “there’s no fool like an old fool?”
Spike Lee, CNN, 8/19/14:
“And I just hope that things will really blow up if the people aren’t happy with the verdict of this upcoming trial.”
Remember when this goofball filmmaker, seeking to assist the New Black Panther Party’s attempts to exact vigilante “justice” against George Zimmerman, tweeted out the address of an elderly couple who had nothing to do with Mr. Zimmerman’s defending himself?
In the same interview quoted above, with Anderson Cooper, Mr. Lee explained that he’s not encouraging people to burn things and loot, at least until the legal proceedings against Officer Wilson come up with the “wrong” conclusion. Because it’s all about getting “justice,” as in a judicial lynching of this cop, regardless of the facts. Rule of law? Who needs it? This is Barack Obama’s America. I suggest that Mr. Lee do the right thing, stick to going to Knicks games and put a sock in it.
Al Sharpton, Meet The Press, 8/24/14:
“I have access to the White House. In every era going back to Lincoln with Frederick Douglass, presidents talk to those that were leading at that time. I’m not comparing Marc Morial or Melanie Campbell and I to Frederick Douglass, but that’s nothing unusual.”
Frederick Douglass? You did compare yourself to him, Reverend, and it’s completely understandable. I think we can all remember those historical reports of Mr. Douglass, the dignified former slave, prancing around in a polyester jogging suit, sporting a huge garish medallion, and screeching at the top of his lungs. Well, maybe not.
So if comparisons to Frederick Douglass are inappropriate, what can we say about this buffoonish charlatan? Currently, he is very tight with Obama’s consigliere Valerie Jarrett, and is the One’s go-to guy on the issue of race.
In addition, he has a very checkered past that somehow doesn’t seem to matter. In 1987, he gained national attention with his disgusting Tawana Brawley slander in which he was assessed $65,000 in damages for falsely accusing a prosecutor of raping a teenage girl. (Freeloader that he is, he got O.J. attorney Johnnie Cochran and other supporters to pay these damages for him in 2001.) In 1991, the rev ginned up anti-Semitism after a Jewish man accidentally struck and killed a black child in the Brooklyn N.Y. neighborhood of Crown Heights, resulting in looting and the fatal stabbing of a Jewish student. In 1995, there was his incitement of a race riot in the Freddy’s Fashion Mart incident that resulted in seven deaths. Are we sensing a pattern here? Was there a body count associated with Frederick Douglass?
Attorney Benjamin Crump, 8/25/14, as the funeral of Michael Brown:
“Now one could logically conclude that this manner of thinking followed the precedence of the 1787 Three Fifths Compromise, which said African Americans were to be considered only three-fifths of a man.
But as we pay our final respects to Michael Brown, Jr., we declare today that he was not 3/5’s of a Citizen, he was an American Citizen, because we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. And because of these truths, we will not accept 3/5’s justice for Michael Brown, Jr, we demand Equal Justice for Michael Brown, Jr.”
This guy gained acclaim as one of the attorneys for Trayvon Martin’s family back in 2012. In the Michael Brown case, aka Trayvon Martin 2.0, he made this statement right after invoking the Dred Scott decision. I wonder if this brilliant lawyer realizes that the Dred Scott case shares the same legal underpinning, substantive due process, as one of the Left’s favorite cases of all time, Roe v. Wade, which also denied the humanity of a whole group of people.
Regardless, he clearly does not understand the rationale behind the Three-Fifths Compromise. I know that math class is tough for liberals, but I’ll speak slowly so that even Mr. Crump and his fellow leftists might possibly be able to understand. By not counting each slave in the Confederate states as a whole person, that gave those states LESS representation in Congress; therefore, it was a way to disempower those states. Northerners who opposed slavery didn’t want the slaves counted at all toward the number of people in a state, so as to further reduce their numbers in the House of Representatives. Would Mr. Crump have preferred the Confederate states to have had more power because they were given credit for larger populations? If not, then why is he popping off about a rule that he clearly doesn’t understand?
You have probably noticed that I have not included any remarks from Attorney General Eric Holder, a disgrace to his office, who clearly has no interest in the pursuit of justice in this case. There is no evidence of any racial animus in this case, therefore, Mr. Holder is engaging in the very racial profiling he claims to abhor by assuming the worst about Officer Wilson because he is white. I have not omitted Mr. Holder from this list for lack of stupid remarks by this clown. I omitted him because he deserves a whole column of his own. Stay tuned.