McCain: David Duke or Adolf Hitler?

It's amazing that any Republican or conservative would have the temerity to criticize any Democratic candidate over their supposed lack of gravitas or ability to govern after what the Republicans have inflicted on us in the past decade. Frat boy Bush came in as the "adult, MBA" president and leaves us with the wars, Katrina, a globally-sullied reputation and a half TRILLION dollar deficit.

Far from criticizing Democrats, you should all just hang your heads in shame.

Besides - even though Obama was my 3d choice of the Dems - it is indisputable that he's run an astonishingly effective campaign on every level. Maybe that's not exactly equivalent to governing, but it far outstrips anything his competitors of both parties have been able to accomplish. Plus he's run a civilized campaign, which I thought would be something CC's would appreciate.

I won't vote for Obama because he doesn't look like the other presidents on dollar bills. But then I won't vote for McCain either. Give me a president with a powdered whig or muttonchops!

All this 'outrage' will serve as CYA for the Dems if Obama loses in November. It won't be because Americans reject their policies and prescriptions, it will be because of their candidate's race, and therefore, "we will need to work all the harder to bring light to the benighted racist American masses!" Honestly, can't you hear it already?

You say it should be "Jon Stewart-y", but Stewart himself has done a far better job of poking fun at the Obamessiah image. Why not just play a clip of Stewart commenting on Obama's trip to Israel "to visit the manger where he was born"?

if the point is to convey the allegation that Obama's celebrity is built on little or nothing, you really can't telegraph that more effectively than by using images of Britney and Paris.

Yeah, nothing like getting a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard, serving as president of Harvard Law review, writing a few books and getting elected to the Senate to evoke unearned celebrity.

What we're experiencing here is a hull breach in the intellectual vacuum created by the Bush administration sucking every scrap of cultural detritus that's not firmly secured.

"democratic bedwetters"? rod, you have revealed yourself to have been a nerdy little fat kid in louisiana who had trouble getting bullied his whole life - and then you use tough-guy rhetorical crap like that?

get a grip, dude. you ain't a tough guy.

It's called "colorful writing," ye humor-free Lightworker worshiper. Please make a note of it.

Sure, using the Hilton/Spears images in the McCain ad was dumb ... but Obama's playing the race card is dangerous. You don't unify America by unfairly stigmatizing most Americans.

The Obama campaign (and their allies in the MSM) are attempting to smear an entire group of Americans (non-blacks) as being intrinsically racist. The statements by B.O. on Wednesday, in Berlin, and elsewhere point to that.

This isn't just confined to political opponents. Obama's declaration that his grandmother was a "typical white person" was derided primarily because it was seen as Obama "throwing her under the bus" for political expediency. But the statement's premise — that the "typical" white person is a reflexive racist — is at least as offensive.

The comments regarding Obama's statement to San Francisco elites about bitter, working class voters focused largely on the condescension in his claim that such folks "cling to guns or religion." What was ignored was Obama's clause "...or antipathy to people who aren't like them..." Again, Obama is branding a huge swath of the American populace in unsavory terms.

During the primaries the Obama campaign leapt upon any statement that was even remotely related to color as evidence of racist intent. Odd behavior for a campaign originally based on racial transcendence.

Hey, over the last eight years we have witnessed the stupidification of what "conservatism" was supposed to originally represent. It has been relatively easy for "progressives" to appear, well ... smarter by default.

Now we get to be treated to how dumb the left has become over the last eight years. Which is dumber, The New Yorker cover, or the progressive reaction to it? Could be a toss-up. And if one thinks the outing of Valerie Plame was spectacularly and dangerously stupid at multiple levels (which I do), wait until some of these ambitious post-marxist ninnies enjoy the same degree of access and influence.

Welcome to America in the 21st century!

Rod -

Obama - relative unknown (almost totally unknown before four years ago), African American, "weird" name and background, rose from real poverty and obscurity, won against huge odds against the hugely funded Clinton machine and Edwards. Remember HRC was "the inevitable."

McCain - incumbent with huge name recognition, war chest, huge personal fortune, carrying the water for the megacorps you are supposedly against (and getting enriched thereby), boosted by early family connections, etc. Won nomination by default as the others dropped out; struggling monumentally - and resorting to Rovian dirty tricks in desperation.

If you want to know why Obama isn't doing better in the polls - besides racism, an evil that the Repub party has a rich history of exploiting - read (or re-read, as I assume you've read it) Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas. Republicans have been swindling and coercing working people for decades with talk about family values, all the while ignoring families and creating economic injustice. Also, many believe the media - which has a vested interest in promoting a close race - is distorting the reality, which is that Democratic registration (and presumed Dem voting) is up hugely this year, while Repubs are stagnant or shrinking.

However, I believe the jig is up and - assuming the election doesn't get stolen again - Obama and many Dems are ready to win in November. We are on the cusp of a progressive revival. Don't believe me? According to this morning's WSJ, labor exploiter Wal-Mart is scared enough of this to pressure its employees to vote Repub.

Hill

But the sanctimony of his supporters are driving me toward McCain against my will.

Rod's friend makes a point, but then again, if I went by the proclivities and attitudes of a candidate's supporters, I would never have voted for anybody since I turned 18!

As to the race card, it's not pretty, but I hope no one here was naive enough to think that in the real world we'd get through a campaign with the first major-party black candidate for President in our history without both sides playing it, explicitly or subtly, directly or by proxy. As the inimitible Derb puts it, "All American politicians are liars and hypocrites about race, from Democrats like Hillary Clinton posing as champions of the downtrodden black masses while buying a house in the whitest town they can find, to Republicans pretending not to know that (a) many millions of nonblack Americans seriously dislike black people, (b) well-nigh every one of those people votes Republican, and (c) without those votes no Republican would ever win any election above the county level. (emphasis added)

Frankly, I'm surprised at how little the race card has been played so far, all things considered. In any case, its use by either side shouldn't play into the considerations of any serious person on either side as to how to vote.

McCain saying Obama is "playing the race card" is in fact McCain "playing the race card." McCain knows the only way he can win the election is to attract Reagan Democrats and Independents. The Reagan strategy was to focus on race to attract working-class whites. McCain is just using the same playbook that the GOP has used since 1980: use terms like "race car" and "racial preferences" and "affirmative action" to create unease in working-class white voters who have the most anxiety over race.

We are going to have a racialized election, but let's not pretend this is all the doing of Obama and the Democrats. That's naive. McCain and the GOP want to racialize the election.

Such a puppet. The ad itself does not McCain the principal benefit; it's solely the reaction to the ad that McCain is looking for. The benefits of putting out colorably racial ads out there:

If Obama does not fight back, he looks weak.

If Obama does fight back, he is made to appear to be playing the race card, which brings out the anger is many many more whites (such as Dreher) than the original ad did.

Rod, your reaction to reaction to the ad is exactly what the Republicans were looking for.

quote: "If you want to know why Obama isn't doing better in the polls - besides racism, an evil that the Repub party has a rich history of exploiting - read (or re-read, as I assume you've read it) Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas. Republicans have been swindling and coercing working people for decades with talk about family values, all the while ignoring families and creating economic injustice."

Frank's thesis is a flawed one on a number of levels. First, it assumes that Democrats actively protect the economic interests of the working class. This assertion is questionable when one considers how many factories have closed down in the last 20-30 years in this country and moved to cheaper locations overseas. What have Democrats done to stop this? Wasn't Clinton, for example, a big supporter of NAFTA? The Democrats love getting the votes of union members and blue collar workers. But they don't do much for them. This is definitely not the case for socially liberal interest groups. The Democratic Party is much more likely to go to bat for NARAL than for blue collar factory workers who are about to lose their jobs. After all, the Democrats are run by upper class liberals who aren't threatened by factory closures, not blue collar types.
So why should one blame socially conservative working class families for voting Republican? Granted, the Republicans don't do much for their economic interests either, and the efforts they put forth on behalf of socially conservative causes is often lacking. But they aren't as condescending towards people who live in "flyover" country as are liberal Democrats, who often openly mock people who don't live on the coasts and move in the same circles that they move in. It's not irrational for working class and middle class people to vote against liberals. After all, if a group of people intensely dislikes you and those like you, how can you trust them to stand up for your interests?
At any rate, the idea that working class folks are "duped" by Republicans to vote against their interests is highly questionable. Also, one could use Frank's argument on upper class liberals as well. If one maintains that Democrats stand up for the poor against the rich, aren't the Democrats "duping" upper class liberals with their positions on abortion, gay rights, and gun control to vote against their economic interests? Shouldn't upper class liberals vote for Republicans in general and Bush specifically because of Bush's tax cuts? The fact of the matter is that many upper class liberals are intensely pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and these issues are important to them. Well, the same goes for many working class and middle class people who are intensely religious and are pro-life ("cling to God and guns"). What's good for the goose and all...

rr

It's called "colorful writing," ye humor-free Lightworker worshiper. Please make a note of it.
Posted by: Rod Dreher | August 1, 2008 10:24 AM

I guess that is another example of your 'colorful writing', Rod.

Just as no 'Democratic bedwetter' (and that Coulter/Savage-esque style makes you look like a small person) has called McCain David Duke or Hitler, I'm not humor-free and I'm not a Lightworker worshiper. But yet you write that I am.

If you are going to use 'colorful writing/'inflammatory rhetoric'/lies, you should not be surprised when someone calls you on it.

I recently posted that I was surprised that the campaign had not gotten ugly yet. I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, these political campaigns won't change until we make it clear to them that we, as citizens, don't much enjoy this evasion of real issues with phony personal smears.

I think that Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama, and even Bob Barr are good candidates. I like all three of them. As a moderate with libertarian leanings, I think that Sen.McCain and Sen. Obama are more moderate than they appear. However, if I based my opinion on them from how this campaign is progressing, I would truly be worried.

We're still early in the final campaign, so maybe we'll see things improve as we go along, but I doubt.

As for racial healing, I think that Sen. Obama's candidacy shows that we have, in fact, progressed in this country in our ideas upon race. We may not see it now, but we are slowly and steadily improving.

The fact that ads and gaffes are always such an important topic in campaigns does, however, strike me as strange. Surely we can see that the three candidates differ on policies and choose based on that. Of course, I'm probably wrong.

"It's amazing that any Republican or conservative would have the temerity to criticize any Democratic candidate over their supposed lack of gravitas or ability to govern after what the Republicans have inflicted on us in the past decade"

Hillary Rettig,

It does not suprise me you have that reaction. Many Democrats adn Obama supports think it is gravitas for any of us to oppose Obama or even speak out

Dnaiel you ask if that was the best McCain could come up with as w3ell as Obama.

LEt me ask you this. McCain is speaking to the Urban League right now. How much of the substance of that speech will be broadcast. McCain tried to highlight trade with South America a few weeks ago on a important trip. Big yawn by the media.

McCain has a lot to offer and if he has to be inventive to jar the media in realizing he exist through a light and I though kinda of funny ad then so be it.

"The fact that McCain has been forced to stoop to this kind of stuff in late July--leading his fellow travelers to start violating Godwin's Law in headlines--demonstrates the problems in the McCain campaign."

Uh, right, Daniel. And if McCain had waited till later to "stoop to this kind of stuff," it would be criticized as a move of desperation or some damn thing. Face it -- A) no criticism of Obama will be allowed and B) when it happens it will be automatically be dubbed 'racist.'

Ya just can't win with some people.

"And if McCain had waited till later to "stoop to this kind of stuff," it would be criticized as a move of desperation or some damn thing."

Here's an idea. How about not stooping at all. How about running a campaign focused on your ideas and your policies. How about not running negative ads. How about not whipping up racial anxiety in the voters you are trying to attract.

What is particularly interesting about Obama's response is that he is implicitly suggesting that the electorate is latently racist and that when McCain, et. al. make ads like this they are in fact stirring what should remain latent. In other words, Obama is not insulting McCain's campaign, but he is actually complementing it! He is saying, "You sneaky bastards, you're manipulating the dumb and malleable unwashed masses that should legitimately be mine." Obama is insulting the electorate and employing that insult to shame and bully them into voting for him. If I may use a Platonic allusion, Obama is procuring the tactic, "Mandatory diversity training writ large." That's not "hope." That's fear; fear of shame, fear of being called a racist, fear of others thinking you may not like the black guy. So, when Obama says he wants "change," he is talking about you. You need to change, to become more "enlightened," unlike your Reagan Democrat parents who were probably racists. Obama does not want to dialogue with you, since to do so would imply that you may actually have a rationally defensible position that has a point. He wants to shepherd you through the transition out of your benighted red state moronic worldview. In Obama's universe, it's okay to talk down to people who are in fact beneath you. You are beneath him. Get with the program or he'll call you a racist.

There's a pattern emerging: Obama seems to instinctively resort at every turn to his one-size-fits-all explanation for why certain people and groups in our society would disagree with him: they are fundamentally irrational and need to be taught by the enlightened like him. From his comments about "clinging to guns and religion" to his prophesy that his opponents will say "he has a funny name" and "he is black" to the ease by which he appeals to "divisiveness" to account for the beliefs of the citizens of California who want to protect their understanding of marriage by means of amendment, Obama is suggesting that opposition to his candidacy and the ideas he holds dear cannot in principle arise from legitimate and serious disagreement by well-meaning fellow citizens.

The only audacity is calling this "hope."

When you have nothing worthwhile to offer in your own campaign, your only alternative is to make stupid attacks at the other candidate.

I agree, Obama should have ignored the ad and let McCain look stupid for endorsing those words. To be honest, the more McCain runs ads like this, the less Presidential he looks. He comes across as desperate.

Where is the positive message from McCain? First he complains that Obama never visits foreign countries. Then he complains when Obama does. Then he complains that folks take notice of Obama doing something.

McCain needs to do something newsworthy and stop whining.

rr: "The Democrats love getting the votes of union members and blue collar workers. But they don't do much for them. This is definitely not the case for socially liberal interest groups. The Democratic Party is much more likely to go to bat for NARAL than for blue collar factory workers who are about to lose their jobs. After all, the Democrats are run by upper class liberals who aren't threatened by factory closures, not blue collar types."

How right you are!! Over at the new "progressive revival" blog here on beliefnet, former Ambassador Ray Flynn yesterday posted an entry advocating for support of parochial schools to help the working class kids in the inner city. Not a single so-called "progressive Christian" offered a positive comment; instead, they just ripped Ray Flynn's idea.

Yes, the Democrats have become the party of the "fat cats:" financial speculators like George Soros and other hedge-fund millionaires; the internet millionaires in Silicon Valley; the high-priced lawyers (John Edwards is their poster boy); the well-heeled abortion industry; the newly-emerging porn industry based in San Francisco; the Hollywood moguls; etc.

These corrupt folks love Obama and Nancy Pelosi and they're raising huge sums to finance a torrential Democratic campaign this fall.

"But I do think it's perfectly legitimate to criticize the other guy's plans and proposals."

Absolutely. Running ads referring to Paris Hilton and talking about Obama's celebrity aren't in that league. They are a desperate move by a more desperate politician.

McCain's campaign is literally standing still. He isn't picking up votes anywhere. Polls now show him losing Ohio and Florida, which means he's dead in the water. While Obama's numbers may be dropping, McCain's aren't gaining.

In other words:

1) If a white person says something that might be interpreted as racist, black people need to give that white person the benefit of the doubt.

2) If a black person says something that might be interpreted as imputing a racist sentiment to a white person, that black person should apologize for making white people uncomfortable and anxious.

This may well be how things actually work in America 2008, and Obama is no doubt watching what he says because of it. But in my view it makes very little sense to ratify this state of affairs as a good one. It would be nice if we could all cut each other a bit more slack: yes, black people should be cautious about making charges of racism, but if a person who has lived their whole life in America as an actual black person gets a little prickly because they think they've been the target of a racist insult, white people (including DMN columnists) might pause a moment before announcing that the bedwetters and the PC police have declared a race war.

Rod: "I guess that's why in the latest Gallup poll, Obama's only two points ahead of McCain."

And this matters why? Or did you miss the fact that we don't elect a president based on popular vote? I assume you're following Nate Silver's polling analysis. So do you really believe that Obama has run a poor campaign, or are you just mouthing off here?

Bless,
Doug

Yeah, nothing like getting a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard

That I'll give him, but on the other hand I have known some pretty dim HLS grads.

serving as president of Harvard Law review

As a compromise candidate. Who, strikingly, published no student note in that or any other legal publication. No published legal scholarship since then (1991) despite a dozen years on the Chicago faculty.

writing a few books

Two books. The first is arguably semi-novelistic with a number of embellishments, the second is the usual ghostwritten campaign tract which will be remaindered/recalled for mulch by the end of '09. What, do you think Dubya really wrote 2000's A CHARGE TO KEEP, or that Borders still stocks it? Same with Bill Clinton's 1993 PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST?

and getting elected to the Senate to evoke unearned celebrity.

Yeah, that was an epic battle against Alan Keyes. Right down to the wire.

Well, it's not even the thick of the campaign season and McCain has acused Obama of playing the race card. The day before that they were trying to compare Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

I don't doubt that Republicans are gonna try and make an issue of Obama's race. A good chunk of the Republican base in rural areas is racist. Hell, the Bush campaign tried to make an issue out of McCain's adopted daughter. I've also heard plenty of the right wing pundits emphasize Obama's middle name.

As far as the race card goes, it's odd because Obama is bi-racial - he has a white mother and a black father. My own Evangelical Republican family members agree that he hasn't made his African roots something to hang over white folks' heads. Quite the opposite, he's called on the black community to take more responsibility.

As far as trying to use Obama's celebrity to paint him as an empty suit without experience, I'd like to ask the following questions:

If John McCain has learned so much from years of experience why has he backed Bush so much? Why'd he want to invade Iraq? Why doesn't he support increased fuel efficiency standards as a means of reducing demand (with correlating price drops)?

What's really odd is that McCain now says a 16 month withdrawl time-table of our troops from Iraq is doable. What happened to the 100 years in Iraq that McCain proposed in the New England primaries? Just a few months ago he said maybe a five year withdrawl. Is this just like his flip-flop on torture in which he now supports what he used to oppose?

I think the main reason that Obama has celebrity status is most of us are scared to death of George W. Bush III. I lived in South Korea and ended up having to pretend I was Canadian to avoid bitter arguments with folks, ironically, with whom I agreed.

I thought McCain was better than Bush, but I'm really starting to think they're the same creature.

Yeah, that was an epic battle against Alan Keyes. Right down to the wire.

Wow, guess you're right, K street. Obama is no more qualified than Britney and Paris, just like McCain says. I've seen the light - give me four more years just like the last four.

"And a big yawn by Rod, too, let's acknowledge."

Oh DOug I agree Rod is quirky on these things partly because he is in the lets complain about Republicans camp. I do not expect ROD to friendly toward things such as the Free Trade agreement. However that does not not exclude the non Crunchy COn MSM

Marian Neudel: can you possibly explain to this confused liberal just what bedwetting has to do with liberalism

Rod is a master of the genteel euphemism. What he meant was that liberals are a bunch of ineffectual wetdreamers, i.e. impotent wankers.

Actually, what I meant was that Democrats/liberals who are screaming bloody murder over what a terrible, horrible, no good man McCain is because of his dopey celebrity anti-Obama ad are hysterics.

I think the real racism comes into play in thinking that Democrats don't have to answer the question, "Aside from taking the position that infanticide should be a legal option for women whose unborn offspring survive the abortion process, what has Obama actually done?"

I think it's a fair question. Granted, he worked with the CHD as a community organizer in Chicago and was a civil-rights attorney, but after that he was an Illinois senator for one term while remaining a constitutional law professor, an unsuccessful candidate for the US House, and finally, was elected as the junior senator from Illinois to the US Senate in 2004, where he has has served less than one full term.

Frankly, someone with Obama's qualifications and experience usually draws raised eyebrows when he's selected as a running mate for the VP slot, so what's wrong with asking why Obama should be president?

Somehow even asking that question is seen to be racist. But let's face it: there are a lot of former lawyer and/or former professor, junior senator or two-term House of Representatives members who've are every bit as qualified as Obama to run, if not more so by reason of actual legislative accomplishments or other experience. Aside from being acknowledged as an unusually good speaker by many, what qualifies Obama to skip the usual years of work in higher offices and positions and go straight to the top?

McCains new ad :)

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/143513.html

This would assume that the only choices were Paris Hilton or a female Archie Bunker.

I think there's a few options between the two.

"Aside from being acknowledged as an unusually good speaker by many, what qualifies Obama to skip the usual years of work in higher offices and positions and go straight to the top?"

The fact that the Right sees him as an easier opponent than Hillary, that's what.

Frankly, someone with Obama's qualifications and experience usually draws raised eyebrows when he's selected as a running mate for the VP slot, so what's wrong with asking why Obama should be president? Somehow even asking that question is seen to be racist.
Posted by: Erin Manning | August 1, 2008 2:35 PM

OK, Erin, I'll bite. Can you point to a single person who simply asked this question about Obama's qualifications and was branded a racist by any serious public commentor. (By this, I do not mean some anonymous guy on Daily Kos comment section).

Francis, Archie did nothing but say what he believed. He never, far as the show went, acted on them.

But, if you're saying the girl doesn't say she has them, does nothing about them, shows no indication that she has them.. then, outside of the hypothetical world, how would you even KNOW she held that belief?

You used a famous example for one extreme, I used one for the other.

There is a TON of leeway in between. (Such as your Sicilian lady.)

If you're going to bring up a singular rather vapid celebritante, as one side, it isn't quite fair to use just an average Joe for the other.

I'm not aware of any evidence of racism in John McCain, and I'm not aware of any racism in Barack Obama. But Rod, you live in this (well, in Dallas county, maybe not), you reside in one of the reddest of the red states where the Republican Party itself promotes racism, where, as the executive director once commented to me personally, "Of course, I love N---ers, every white man should own two." However, going back a ways, the manager of the Dukakis campaign also commented to me personally, "We don't need the N---er vote."

There's no shortage of racism in the USA, and it's not limited to one race. The thing is, a lot of us thought it was gone. Obama is entirely justified to complain about it and justified to use examples his audiences are ready for. It's just a travesty that both candidates are taking time away from discussing any of a number of truly vital issues facing us.

If Obama does become President, Rod, I think you're right, the level of discourse goes down from here. But over the long run, in terms of legacy, his election would promote racial healing in our country. The thing is, a lot of people will be too weary to notice.

Just exactly who are the real, most dangerous racists these days?

All stats are from the FBI and US Department of Justice. Remove the "*" and put "." in the links for them to work (sorry, otherwise my post won't go through).

Black people (men, women, and children) make up only about 12% of the USA, which logically makes "crime-age" black men ONLY about 6% of the US population, but somehow only 6% of the population commits over 50% of all murders, over 32% of all rapes, over 56% of all robberies, and over 34% of all aggravated assaults in the USA.

ojp*usdoj*gov/bjs/homicide/race*htm
fbi*gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_43*html

When viewing the stats linked above, be aware that the FBI and USDOJ counts Mestizos (the proper ethnic term for most Mexicans or "Latinos") as being WHITE, which unfairly raises the reported "white crime rate", ESPECIALLY the "white sex offender rate", much higher than it actually is in reality. Most Police Departments in the USA also do the same thing. Don't believe me? Check out the Sex Offender page of the Grand Prairie, Texas (a large suburb of Dallas) Police Department. Every Mestizo/Mexican/Latino/Whatever is categorized as being "white".

grandprairiepolice*org/sexoffender/75050*htm

Washington State, where I live now, does this too. Do these guys look white to you???

ml*waspc*org/offender*aspx?pid=292821&name=Garcia,%20Juvencio%20John&address=17xx%20Independence%20RD&city=Outlook%20&zip=98938

ml*waspc*org/offender*aspx?pid=1094963&name=Garcia,%20Israel%20Trevino&address=13xx%20Summerfield%20DR%20SE&city=Lacey%20&zip=98513

---------

ojp*usdoj*gov/bjs/pub/press/bvvcpr*htm

"Black Americans accounted for 13 percent of the U.S.
population in 2005 ...but were the victims of 49 percent of all homicides. Among single victim-single offender homicides, about 93 percent of black victims were murdered by black offenders."

ojp*usdoj*gov/bjs/abstract/bvvc*htm

"Blacks were victims of an estimated 805,000 nonfatal violent crimes and of about 8,000 homicides in 2005."

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND that 93% of those 8,000 black people killed in 2005 were killed BY OTHER BLACKS.

----------

Much has been made about the percieved threat that blacks feel from whites regarding noose-hangings lately.

What do you make of these following facts? This comes from "The History of Lynching In The United States", a class at The University of Massachusetts.

umass*edu/complit/aclanet/ACLAText/USLynch*html

"There are "2805 [documented] victims of lynch mobs killed between 1882 and 1930 in ten southern states. Although mobs murdered almost 300 white men and women, the vast majority - almost 2,500 - of lynch victims were African-American."
----------

I certainly think that any kind of violence is evil and that racist lynchings are particularly awful.

I do find it interesting that according to the US Government, at

ojp*usdoj*gov/bjs/pub/press/bvvcpr*htm

and

ojp*usdoj*gov/bjs/abstract/bvvc*htm

that at least 8,000 black people were murdered in 2005 alone, and that 93% of the murderers of these black people were black people themselves.

In light of the recent "Jena 6" situation, and the threat that black people have claimed to feel from whites because of it, what do you think about the fact that more black people were murdered by other black people (7,440 people, which is 93% of 8,000) in one year alone, 2005, than were murdered by all the white lynch mobs during the 48 years of 1882 through 1930 combined (about 2,500 people)?

This means that, in only one year, blacks killed almost 3 times the number of blacks than were killed by all the white lynch mobs during the 48 "peak-lynching years" combined!

Therefore, it stands to reason that the real, most dangerous threat to black people these days is not from racist white people or lynchings, but from black people themselves.
=====================

From the US Department of Justice:

ojp*usdoj*gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst*htm

Go to the "Victims and Offenders" and download the pdf document for 2005. Then go to table 42. It PLAINLY states:

"Type of crime and race of victim" for "Rape/sexual assault" : White only - Number of single-offender victimizations - 111,490- Percieved Race of Offender - Black - 33.6%."

33.6% of 111,490 is 37,460.

Here are the numbers for black victims of rape and sexual assault:

"Type of crime and race of victim for "Rape/sexual assault" : Black only - Number of single-offender victimizations - 36,620- Percieved Race of Offender - White - 0.0% *."

and if you follow the little asterix to the bottom of the page for the footnote, it says very clearly:

"Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases."

So there you go, plain as day. According to the US Department of Justice, in the year 2005 alone black men raped at least 37,460 white women, and in the same year white men raped less than ten black women.

Therefore, statistically, over 100 white women are being raped every day by black men.

======================================

When whites do violence like rape, murder, and assault, how often do they choose black victims? Shouldn't a nation of ant-black racists target blacks most of the time? At least half of the time? Of course, it does not. When whites commit violence, they do it to blacks 2.4 percent of the time. Blacks, on the other hand, choose white victims more than half the time.

So just exactly who are the REAL, MOST DANGEROUS racists these days? If you have any connection to reality you can easily see that it is not white people.