You have heard by now, probably, that the Attorney General of the United States has called The U.S. a "nation of cowards". Phil Gramm merely called us a "nationa of whiners", and the mainstream media went ballistic--not to mention then candidate Obama (pretending to be "outraged"--let us see the "outrage" about Attorney General Holder). Further, Phil Gramm has been proven absolutely correct, as everyone from big banks to automakers to Wall Street to people at President Obama's town halls have whined to be bailed out. Except for this blog, rarely has anyone been proven so completely right as Phil Gramm.
Why did Eric Holder call us a "nation of cowards"? Was it because our mainstream media was intimidated by Islamic extremists to the extent they failed to defend "free speech" in the case of the Muhammad Danish cartoons? Nope. That is not it, even though the mainstream media showed itself, in the main, to be total cowards then--cowards who do not really believe in free speech.
Is it the cowardice of the mainstream media generally in failing to expose extreme Islam, such as by failing to publicize the BEHEADING of a wife by that Muslim who bought a media network to improve the image of Muslims? Nope. That is not it, even though if a non-Muslim had committed such a crime, the crime would have received the "Scott Peterson" treatment. Further, it is past time for the mainstream media to really examine the intolerance of the Muslim religion, and absolute contempt from women, AS THAT RELIGION IS PRACTICED IN THE WORLD TODAY. That is still not, however, what Holder was talking about.
Was Holder talking about the cowardice of the mainstream media, and most of our political "establishment", in failing to fully reportt of the collapse of Mexico? See this blog's entries under the general title of "Mexico: A Failed Country". Nope. That is not it either.
Eric Holder was talking about the alleged "cowardice" of Americans to "hold conversations" about race. LOL. I could not make this up. No one could. This blog, of course, has routinely held "conversations" about race, except leftists out there have been too much COWARDS to join the conversation by commenting on those entries. One of the consistent and frequent assertions--correct assertions--of this blog has been that the primary racists in the country today are leftists, including those in the mainstreeam media. Those are the people who identify people as being defined by the racial or ethnic grop to which they belong, instead of as individuals. Yes, I called Obama a racist, and I meant it. And I call Eric Holder a racist, and I mean it. Because I know what Eric Holder means, ans so do you. He means that we should all have "conversations" about how African-Americans are "victims" who are not advanced enough to be treated as individual human beings, instead of being defined by their race. That is why I correctly label Holder a racist. Defining people by their race is the essence of racism--the very definition. Only leftists consistently do that in America today.
Especially in percentage terms, more Americans died to end slavery in this country than have died in any other war. Were those Americans "cowards". To even use the word in Holder's context defames their memory. More Union soldiers died in about one HOUR at the "Bloody Angle" than died in any single YEAR of the Iraq War. In the Battle of the Wilderness, the Army of the Potomac alone lost, in two days, more dead than in the U.S. military lost in the entire Iraq War--many of the wounded dying, screaing, in the fires that raged through the thickets in which that battle had been fought. In the "Overland Campaign", in which General Grant established his reputation as a "butcher", tens of thousands of Union soldiers died to abolish salvery. It was that campaign, of course, that pinned Robert E. Lee in place, and ultimately guaranteed the Union victory. This victory cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, on the Union side along--the side fighting to abolish slavery. Were these men cowards?
Enough.. Eric Holder is a racist idiot. I am not interested in him. I am more interested that this incient caused this blog to be proven right once again about Soledad O'Brien and CNN.
Soledad O'Brien is a racist. I made that flat statement in more than one entry at the time Reverend Wright surfaced in the campaign--restating his racist, anti-American views. You will remember that Obama could not even stomach him. However, that was not true of the racists at CNN, including Soledad O'Brien. They never abandoned Reverend Wright.
But it was NOT that final Reverend Wright speech/press conference, which was too much even for Obama, that caused me to correctly label Soledad O'Brien as one of the most racist individuals in the country today.
Rather, what established Soledad O'Brien as fully as much a racist as a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, along with most of CNN, was her reacton to the speech the previous day that Reverend Wright made to the Detroit NAACP. That was a racist speech (go back and read my entries at the time). Soledad O'Brien called that racist speech "one of the greatest speeches I have ever heard". Q.E.D. Soledad O'Brien is a racist. If you don't remember, that is the speech where Reverend Wright said that African-Americans think differently than "white Europeans." It is the speech where Reverend Wright said that African-Americans learn differently than white Europeans. It is the speech where Reverend Wright embraced "black English" (really a discredited concept), and suggested that African-Aermicans need to be educated "differently" than "white Europeans". A grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan could not have said it better, or praised this racism more effusively than Grand Dragoness Soledad O'Brien--at least an honorary member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Soledad O'Brien was at it again today. She defended the racist hate speech of Eric Holder, just as she had defended the racist hate speech of Reverend Wright. What else could you expect? Soledad O'Brien is a racist working at a racist network. However, this time it gets worse.
Soledad O'Brien attempted sarcasm in defense of Holder--proving both that she is a racists and that she should leave sarcasm to the experts (like myself). For an amateur like Soledad O'Brien to attempt sarcasm on race was inevitably going to expose her again as a racist.
Ms. O'Brien brought up that this is "Black History Month", which was typically--she stated--the SHORTEST month of the year. Ms. O'Brien was clearly suggesting that African-Americans were receiving the short end of the stick again--one of the more racist comments I have ever heard. Plus, it turns out that Ms. O'Brien had no idea of the facts. February was chosen as "Black History Month" by activists back in the time of FDR, or even before, for a very specific reason. It is the brith month of Abraham Lincoln. In fact, originally, it was "Black Hisotry Week", or some shorter period than a month, which specifically included Lincoln's birthday. February also happens to be the birth month of famous abolitionist activist Frederick Douglas. Maybe if Eric Holder, and Soledad O'Brien had talked more of Douglas and Lincoln, and of the courageous people who had opposed slavery in this country--including the Union soldiers who gave their lives--they might have said something significant. As it is, they exposed theselves merely as racist idiots. What can you say about a person so obsessed with race that she even thinks of mentioning that February is both Black History Month and the shortest month of the year. And yes, some of those Union soldiers were black--even if most were white.
What can you say about Soledad O'Brien? I have said it. Soledad O'Brein is a racist. There is not any doubt about it.