The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Let’s Call the ‘Birthers’ What They Are

By Mark Potok on April 28, 2011 - 12:39 pm, Posted in Anti-Black

Perhaps the time has come to state the obvious.

The people who have been selling claims that President Obama is not American — the Donald Trumps, the Orly Taitzes, the miserable state legislators hawking their snake-oil laws insisting that presidential candidates prove their citizenship — are mostly a pack of racists. In the cases where they are not, they are shameless opportunists perfectly willing to exploit racism for their own personal benefit, proponents of a second Republican “Southern strategy.”

And let’s not give a pass to the 25% of Americans who a Harris poll found last month believe Obama was not born in this country despite endless knockdowns by serious news organizations. Common sense — along with an important new study revealing the high levels of racism among those who make such claims — make it obvious what’s going on here. These people are either plainly stupid, or, far more often, whites who see Obama as the Other, the dark-skinned person who represents a racially changing society that they loathe and fear and resent.

But the really vile players in this whole sorry episode aren’t so much the feckless American public, a population notorious for its predilection for groundless conspiracy theories and magical thinking. They are the politicians and the commentators, the so-called responsible leaders and analysts of our society, people who are perfectly willing to consciously lie to get a little attention. They’re ambitious pols like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, talking heads like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh — people who question Obama’s citizenship as a cynical way of employing racism to gin up their ratings and political support.

Take a look at Trump, the narcissistic New Yorker who has become the chief hawker of the myth that Obama was born in Kenya, telling every reporter who would listen that he knew Obama had no birth certificate. When the president finally released that certificate to the public yesterday, Trump’s distract-them-at-any-cost reaction was to crow about how he was responsible for this enlightening release — and then to immediately question how Obama, who he described against all the evidence as a “terrible student,” got into Harvard Law School.

Yes, Donald, we get your drift. Obama’s a black guy who rose from humble origins — not like you, a little Richie Rich who became a real estate mogul after your daddy handed it all to you — and he got into a school far better than any you ever attended. And while you say lamely that you get along with “the blacks” just fine, you just don’t think it’s possible that any black man could be smart enough on his own to get into Columbia University, go on to Harvard Law School, become an editor and then president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, and then graduate magna cum laude.

In recent weeks, some Republican leaders have tried to distance themselves from the “birther” claims about Obama, saying the issue had become a distraction from the many real problems facing the nation. That all sounds very nice, but let’s remember that these same leaders refused to tamp down the nuts before, saying, as did House Speaker John Boehner, that it was not their job to end the attacks. The truth, of course, is that the specious birther claims were lighting up the more unpleasant elements in the Republicans’ base, and Boehner had no interest in squelching that.

An interesting perspective on that base’s attitudes was revealed in a USA Today story yesterday, detailing the results of a study led by Eric Hehman of the University of Delaware and appearing in the March issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. In a nutshell, Hehman and his partners concluded “that current criticisms of Obama are a result of his race, rather than his agenda.” They also found that “higher prejudice predicted Whites seeing Obama as less American, which, in turn, predicted lower evaluations of his performance.”

As The New York Times pointed out in its lead editorial today, “It is inconceivable that this campaign to portray Mr. Obama as the insidious ‘other’ would have been conducted against a white president.” Perhaps the sane people among us can now agree on the obvious: The continuing conspiracy theories about Obama — from his country of birth to his religion to his relationships with the radical left — come from people who are essentially motivated by antipathy toward black people.

  • skinnyminny

    Dick Lancaster,
    I think that we are not on the same page when I mentioned the spanking. So I agree, let’s leave that one alone.

    Colt 45! Wow! Don’t know about that one in the ‘hood. In my hood, it was 40 oz. Old English. But again, it was a joke about Bud, Miller and Jack.

  • Dick Lancaster

    It’s not hard to belive there are black Republicans but it IS hard to BE a black Republican.

    The last time I had a beer was when Colt 45 was popular in the “hood”. So booze references are forign to me.

    As far as my spanking goes, I’d better leave that one alone. I’m married to a white red head and have no problem stereotyping that group. My survival depends on it!

  • skinnyminny

    Dick Lancaster,
    Okay, I think I see where you’re going with this. BTW, I used to be a republican, most of my family members are republicans. I’m thinking that is where I got most of my bad manners, and last but not least, I’m ‘hood. I know it’s hard to believe that blacks are republicans, especially in black neighborhoods, but, most people who served in the military are republican voters.

    And it was just a little teaser joke when I said Bud, Miller, or Jack. My family members use this joke when they say someone is not behaving, just like you. You are being a bad boy needing a little spanking. But here goes, Bud is Budweiser, Miller is Miller Lite, and Jack is Jack Daniels. Again, I was just teasing. ***I hope this made you laugh. Laughter is good once in a while.

  • hardhat

    Hello. Did u people listen to Herman Cain last night? When asked what group of people did not like him on talk radio today, he responded “black liberals”. Do these people still want him to reside on the plantation.? This guy is truly black, 100%, and he is a breath of fresh air. I think Barry is a walking contradiction, but this man, Mr. Cain does not skate around the block.

  • Dick Lancaster

    No, Skinny, no research project. I just enjoy reading your posts. While you get a little insulting from time to time (as do I), your views rarely depend on ridicule of your opponent. Thus, I take your viewpoints as sincere since they stand alone with or without rebuttal.

    I used to admire the SPLC and their work to eradicate the klan. But their “hatewatch” is completely one sided. When they started labeling any group with traditional or conservative values as racist, that’s when they lost me.

    Their leadership is complete hypocracy but their fans aren’t all that way.

    By the way, I haven’t got a clue who Bud, Miller or Jack, JD are.

  • skinnyminny

    Dick,
    Okay, you’re making me laugh again! But wow, sometimes, seriously, I do wonder if you had been kicking it/chillin’ with Bud, Miller, or Jack aka JD. just a little too much. LOL! BTW, I hope you’re not using me ‘as research project.’ LOL! ROTFLMAO! LOL!

  • Guardian

    Ok I get it now.
    We’re just changed the name of the parties from ‘Republican’ to ‘Racist’ and ‘Democrat’ to ‘Domestic Enemy’.
    A rose by any other name?
    No matter the name of the party, the policies stay the same and thus lays the problem. Get over it!

  • Jordan

    “If a quote appears only in racist literature and racists are thus defined by their political opponents based solely on what these opponents consider racist, then it only stands to reason nothing contrary to the beliefs of my political opponents can be true, because all who oppose them are racists.

    This is the circular secret of the power of the concept of political correctness.”

    O.K., so if someone (a person or group) who is against the actions or views of another [person/group] says something about that [person/group] (or says said person/group said something) it is true. If no other source even mentions this, all the other sources are all lying…
    “Catch-a twenty-two, Catch-a twenty-two!”
    “That’s some catch, that Catch-22.”
    Also, dictionaries are responsible for definitions, people are racist if they meet the excepted dictionary definition (you can find this definition in either Merriam-Websters, Encarta, or Oxford), the definition reflects modern word usage.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Also since your reply shows your complete inability to understand basic logical concepts, let me break down the significance of not finding a quote save for on certain sites with an analogy.

    There are many conspiracy theories which attempt to justify themselves with alleged quotes by various historical figures. If you can’t find a particular quote except for on sites which put forth that theory, there’s a good chance they never said it.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Wow Dick, let’s go over this REAL slowly:

    You posted an alleged quote from LBJ. I could not find a single source for the quote save for sites which are run by either White Nationalists are hardcore conservatives. This means there is no objective verification for that quote.

    If the quote appeared on say Wikipedia, or a site which contained a biography of LBJ, then this would be believable. However this is not the case. In fact I’m going to dig up my copy of They Never Said It!(a book of misquotes), and I would not be surprised if it has been debunked for a long time.

    The quote even contains a kernal of racist thinking from the time. It suggests that welfare was all about black people(statistically it isn’t), and that LBJ was giving them a hand-out in return for votes. This is exactly what conservatives and other reactionaries were saying back then, and you’re saying it now. This kind of projection into supposed quotes is almost a tradition on the right.

    For an example, a congressman once claimed he had a list of “goals of Communists” operating in the US and the West. Among the goals was the aim of “pushing for independence of overseas colonial countries before they are ready.” No Communist would ever write such a thing.

    Face it Dick, you have a proclivity toward believing any urban legend or claim which reflects negatively on black people, while you ignore any information which refutes such claims, even when it is based on tons of scientific facts. Why is that?

  • Dick Lancaster

    If a quote appears only in racist literature and racists are thus defined by their political opponents based solely on what these opponents consider racist, then it only stands to reason nothing contrary to the beliefs of my political opponents can be true, because all who oppose them are racists.

    This is the circular secret of the power of the concept of political correctness.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    I just wanted to point out again(as it was cut out of my last comment for some reason), that Dick’s quote from LBJ about the Democratic party cannot be verified as far as I can see. It seems to appear only on racist and conservative sites, and is totally contrary to Johnson’s actions regarding race. What he did say is that the Democrats had lost the South for a generation. Looks like it was longer than that.

    Anyway, I decided to tally up Dick’s racist score card:

    1, Implied that blacks are lazy, and were easily duped into voting for a party because they were promised free money(curiously, many years before 1964 somehow).

    2. Implication that welfare primarily benefits black folks to the extent that we should associate welfare with black people.

    3. Outright claim that blacks as a whole have a psychological delusion which keeps them from acknowledging facts(this is some SERIOUS psychological projection going on). On the surface this might seem valid, until you realize that many of the “facts” that blacks supposedly won’t acknowledge aren’t facts at all.

    4. A general willingness to accept all manner of meme or anecdote that is negative toward blacks, portrays them as lazy, parasitic, etc.

    TOTAL RQ(RACISM QUOTIENT): 687
    YOU HAVE ACHIEVED THE LEVEL OF: “But I’ve got MANY black friends!!!”

    Congratulations, Mr. Lancaster.

  • hardhat

    I could not even imagine this is about racism…no…..!!!!!That race card is flipped more than my cell phone. Gimme a friggin break! Hang it up. It is OLD!!!! It is TIRING.
    Barry is half Caucasian……did u know? Stoppit!!! Tolerance…..what tolerance? Now if Herman Cain runs for the Highest Office, he is 100 percent black and I would consider voting for him .Listen to him……he makes sense. I do believe he will NOT have “invisibility” clouding his records. I think he is proud of his achievements, and will show us his stuff. Cain 2012

  • April Scheller

    Dear Hatewatch Bloggers,
    As excited and impressed with praise as I am by the work you do for other minorities I am deeply hurt and disappointed that you are practicing bigotry too. Hate is not a valid disability and in suggesting so you only support those who wish to accommodate hatred at the expense of my Mad ethnicity and see that other hate groups escape justice while the unjustly segregate laws harming those considered to have mental disability continues on. I am an activist in the Madpride movement and against excusing hate. Hate groups are literally getting away with murder today by the employment of this segregate law for insanity created by the sanist bigots. In June I am speaking against it at City University of New York because other Mad activists invited me to do so. Madness is most frequently categorized under the following: genetic distinctness within the human population [a race], behavioral distinctness within the community [a culture], or distinctness from having lived through a traumatizing situation [a caste]. There are many other words once used to describe those today labeled by psychiatrists now being reclaimed by the rebelling equality movement such as lunatic and nut. A person can simply not advance human rights while at the same time practicing sanism in ignorance by use of sanist themes in the context of determinism. You of the SPLC should be aware that the true bigots love sanism immensely because today that form of hatred is allowing all other forms of bigotry to perpetuate itself without fear of legal recourse merely by recasting any of their members whom get into real trouble with law enforcement as suddenly disabled. This allows organized bigotry to practice real terrorism against minorities with impunity in the USA. Major disability advocacy groups are often front organizations funded by the forced treatment industry which supports segregate laws for my people denying the need to treat disabled persons according to their deeds. To spread fear they stigmatize all innocents by trying to de-stigmatize violent offenders and end up making an enormous profit by passing laws that discriminate against innocent Mad people and require them to be for instance force drugged or force shocked whether they are criminals or not simply because they are supposed to have some kind of natural abnormality in the absence of actual violence.
    For more information please visit the following sites to learn of this form of hatred:
    Mindfreedom.org
    Madnessradio.net
    No one will ever be equal while calling themselves naturally superior to others nor can you advance equality at the SPLC while denying it to me and all Mad persons upon the basis of race, culture, and castes of which you had not understanding. I would like to welcome you to instead truly fight hate with us. We are underutilized and I believe that underutilization is key to the problems you are really facing in advancing human equality.
    April Scheller

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “Since I do not see the Democrat Party offering human dignity, respect and recognition but instead see it generally as a vote buying scam, you have already established that I am demeaning a hard working people. And thus our circle continues; if I oppose your politics, then I must be a racist.”

    Again, vote buying scam, as if they just fork over money to black folks for votes. Nonsense. Statistics simply do not back up these claims, the “welfare queen” meme was demonstrably false, and still is. THAT, and things like what you said, is why people are calling you racist, not because of your opposition to certain politics.

    I am opposed to Obama and the Democrats, and for the fifth or sixth time, NOBODY calls me racist for this. What am I doing differently?

    “What should concern anyone who believes in our founding principles is that people that think as you do vote and sit on juries.”

    And people who believe urban legends and easily disproved claims can be trusted on juries?

    Forget it, just give us some evidence as to how Obama is a domestic enemy.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Dick, I was just wondering if it every struck you that we here have not been ignoring and dismissing your arguments with the word “racist”. We have repeatedly explained to you why your right-wing rants can easily and rightfully been construed as racist.

  • Dick Lancaster

    Skinny:

    I love you, baby and I know where your heart is. But sometimes I wonder where you keep your brain.

    Actually, I do learn a lot from you and I do believe I know where you’re coming from –a different experience that I can accept. I read all your posts so don’t post so many. I have other things to do!

  • Dick Lancaster

    A domestic enemy is unlikely to define himself as such during a campaign. Nor is he likely to articulate that trait. It is up to the news media to investigate such matters and if our domestic enemy is supported by our media it is unlikely the public will know very much about his history until it is too late. So, by definition, the people can vote for a wooden puppet if they think it’s the real deal.

  • Dick Lancaster

    To Robert Steinback:

    I agree that the defining division regarding race came in 1964, but there was hardly a stampede of avowed racists flocking to the Republican Party. President Johnson himself was a well known racist as well as a malignant narcissist. Among other quotes attributed to him at the time of the civil rights passage was, “This should keep them n****rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years!” The great efforts behind voting rights had little to do with altruism and much to do with power.

    As I stated in earlier posts, it was the communists that hitched a ride on the civil rights train thus making opposition to one equate with opposition to the other. The Republican Party had little support from black people as well as white lower class folks due to their “blue blood” reputation; a class rather than a race issue with less than blessed voters. Although the Republican Party has changed dramatically since that time, blacks generally have not followed due to a trait psychologists call “investment”. It is the same trait which prevents science from advancing. In short, it is the reluctance to give up a long held “truth” in the face of new data which disproves that truth. There is also a severe backlash from the base should one of its members stray. It is very difficult to be a black Republican or conservative in a black neighborhood. Free your own people and see how many remain with the Democrat Party.

    The sweeping generalization about how black people make political decisions is a bit condescending. But I believe you are talking generally here so I am inclined to dismiss this in the spirit in which it was written. However, many self-appointed black leaders do this routinely.

    I do agree that to the exclusion of all other races in contemporary human history it has been the African that has been most exploited. I also believe it is carried in the psyche. For this reason and this reason alone those who don’t carry this psychic memory ought to consider it in legislation, education and other institutions societies build for themselves. But this should only be a consideration; it should never dominate lest we have a “special” race which re-establishes segregation—in this instance, self-segregation.

    Since I do not see the Democrat Party offering human dignity, respect and recognition but instead see it generally as a vote buying scam, you have already established that I am demeaning a hard working people. And thus our circle continues; if I oppose your politics, then I must be a racist.

    What should concern anyone who believes in our founding principles is that people that think as you do vote and sit on juries.

  • skinnyminny

    Dick Lancaster,
    May I add, I am well aware of the light skin/dark skin controversy. My other side of the family is white and have disowned the black side, but then again, the white side is from the Midwest, so go figure! I don’t think this is dirty laundry actually, remember George Herbert Walker Bush called Jeb’s children, ‘the Brown Ones,’ during a campaign.

    Finally, I will add, all blacks are not alike, just like all whites are not alike. Another example of this is, small town folks are different from big city folks. No one ever really knows anyone – you can be married (legally or by common law) a lifetime and think you know someone, and really don’t know them at all.

  • skinnyminny

    Okay Dick, now I am a little more focused (earlier, had to get ready for night out).

    I voted for Obama. I plan to vote for him again. I’m thinking, people are not giving him a chance – meaning, people are trying to railroad him at any and all costs. Sad thing is, we all have a stake in rather he fail or succeed.

    I was disappointed to read that you believe he is ‘domestic enemy.’ Please don’t take this personal, but, I believe this is problem one of the reasons your wife left. I think she probably wouldn’t want to be punished/interrogated/imprisoned or even involved in something of this magnitude. The way you said it, it sounds kind of alarming.

    Now for me, and this is just my opinions – I would be more afraid and concerned about the D. This is why, and this is my view and conclusion – he say’s he will use his own money, up to $600 million. Yet, when you look at the cities, counties, states, and the fed govt, he has sued – almost all were at least $100 million per suit. These lawsuits put the taxpayers on the hook, regardless if they are won/loss/settled (do you know how much it costs to defend lawsuits?) So, back to the $600 million – is it really his own money, or is it the taxpayers money? One of the lawsuits against the feds was a counter-suit against the DOJ for suing him because he didn’t want to rent to black tenets. There have been numerous black ex-employees coming forward. Did you see what he did to the Pequot tribe in reference to their casinos? Did you know what he did to the Chinese he sued? I think what was disturbing is the suit against Rancho Palos Verdes – a suit for $100 million when this city has revenues of about $20 million. Then the suit against Florida about a flag! So, this is how I sum it up, I think he throws his weight around, and threaten to bankrupt a city – reminds me of the movie Basic Instinct, where government officials are scared that rich people could actually bankrupt a government entity. This to me seems more of a person who really, and I mean really, doesn’t like America! I will say again, is it his $600 million or is it the taxpayers money? So, for the tea party who complains about taxes, I’m at a loss to find they are endorsing a guy who they are probably on the hook for (shortfall in revenues, bankrupt cities/states).

  • http://splcenter.org Robert Steinback

    In response to Dick Lancaster,

    I usually remind people who describe Republicans as the “Party of Lincoln” that it is also the party of Rutherford B. Hayes, who in 1877 sold out Reconstruction (thereby clearing the way for the rise of the Klan and southern Jim Crow laws that endured for close to a century) as part of a compromise to grant him the presidency in an election in which he did not win the popular vote (the anomaly that would be repeated in 2000). Both parties have had rival internal factions regarding race (the Democratic party created racists like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace as well as racial progressives like Harry Truman and the Kennedys, while the Republicans — who really began as the racial progressives long ago — produced both moderates like Eisenhower and extremists like Goldwater). The defining political division regarding race came with the passage of Civil Rights Act in 1964, which Lyndon Johnson signed while acknowledging, “We [the Democrats] just lost the south for a generation.” He was right: At that point, the vast majority of avowed racists went Republican, and the vast majority of racial progressives went Democratic. Before 1964, many southern blacks were Republican (because of the legacy of the Dixiecrats). Afterward, they knew which party was hostile and which welcomed them — and they voted with their feet. The modern Republican party has so little support from black people because in the defining 1960s, the party chose to snub them. Black people, whose very existence in the New World was defined by generations of back-breaking toil in fields they didn’t own, making other people rich. Black people have never made political decisions based on which party would give them government welfare. We have voted for the candidates and parties who were willing to reciprocate by offering human dignity, respect and recognition. To suggest otherwise is to demean a people who have worked harder in this land, and received less opportunity as a result of that work, than any other.

    Robert Steinback
    Deputy Editor, Hatewatch blog

  • skinnyminny

    Dick Lancaster,
    Okay, I am laughing because you got me on that one! I was being sarcastic and trying to push a button.

    But, let’s be real! It’s not that the skin color controversy that afflicts the black community exclusively, it also affects people from India, Latin America. This skin color controversy still causes devastating affects in India, keeping the caste system somewhat alive. In Latin America, meaning specifically South and Central America, blacks are still suffering from discrimination (remember Bush went to Mexico and made the remark, “oh, you have black people.”)…But, also, let’s look at who most likely created this problem, it wasn’t the citizens of these countries. Just a couple of years ago, England did a story about women from India using skin-whitening creams that ended up causing 1st & 2nd degree burns.
    For this reason, I hold high regards for the Puerto Ricans, there’s no shame in their game-they don’t try to think they’re better than anyone. I’ve had instances where some people from Mexico and Latin America thought I was from one of those countries, and when I told them no, they have made some very nasty/disrespectful comments to me – but, that’s the problem, as I always write, you can’t look at a person and determine where they are from, i.e. when Mariah Carey first came on the scene, the blacks and whites thought she was white, actress Jennifer Beals from the movie Flashdance we just thought ‘what is she!’

  • Leslie

    @Dick
    By definition the President cannot be a domestic enemy if elected by the majority of the people.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Thanks for the cask of whine, Dick.

    First, to the topic. It is easy to see from both from Potok’s article and some commentary why I am a racist. It doesn’t matter what I am, it is how my political opponents wish to define me that makes me a racist. My opposition to their political views and not my experiences of a lifelong interaction with the black community, including a 7 year marriage and a 4 year hitch in the military is my primary sin. My rational arguments can be dismissed because I am labeled a racist.”

    Dick, apparently it’s not “easy” to see from the comments, because myself and others have pointed out precisely why you are labeled as a racist.

    Your arguments might have been somewhat rational until you clearly made a conscious decision to ignore every response to them and ramble on like this.

    “But having been associated with the other race for so long I am privy to much of the dirty laundry. One of these loads is the light skin/dark skin controversy. You see, there is an inherent racism within the black community itself solely based on skin tone. This, as well as the very real and very recent history of oppression is one of the primary reasons we cannot advance past the name-calling stage and fix our problems. The first fix must come from within the black community itself.”

    Trying to air the “dirty laundry” of the black community? Totally not racist.

    Besides this is a distraction from the point you attempt to make here: many of the problems of the black community come from outside of that community, so no, the solution can’t come from entire from the black community. Since whites are still a majority ,control most of the wealth, and most of the power, whites need to be willing to see the many obvious examples of institutional racism and do something about it.

    “There are those too in the black community that don’t want these problems fixed. They generate enormous amounts of income for race baiters like Jesse Jackson and the Street Clown.”

    Labeling civil rights leaders as race baiters. Totally not racist.

    ” And yes, indeed it was the Republicans that freed the slaves and blacks swarmed to it during the post war years up until Wilson’s administration. That’s when the Democrats co-opted many blacks as well as many others with the welfare state.”

    Oh yeah them black folks just wanted them welfare checks right? TOTALLY NOT RACIST. While some welfare benefits were brought into existence by the New Deal, most of the benefits of the New Deal went to whites. In fact even today more whites receive some form of welfare than blacks. Studies have also shown that most people on welfare prior to the 1996 reform did not remain on welfare long(usually less than a year), and the states with the highest welfare benefits had the lowest welfare rolls, with recipients leaving the rolls sooner than in states with lower benefits. The source for this is They Way We Never Were, by Stephanie Coontz. Where’s your sources? Limbaugh? Hannity? Boortz?

    Again, arguments like the one above ARE THE REASON PEOPLE CALL YOU RACIST. In one paragraph you insinuate the following:

    1. Black people were duped and co-opted by Democrats who offered them welfare(historically nonsensical claim).

    2. Black people are lazy and will vote for whoever promises them welfare.

    ” It was George Wallace D. AL who barred the door of the university to black students.”

    Hmm….what was the party affiliation of the president who sent federal troops to open that university?

    Yes we all know Lincoln was a Republican. But we also all know about Nixon and the “Southern strategy”, a plan to reach out to angry whites who felt betrayed by the Democratic party after the Dixiecrats were gone. They specifically planned to use racial appeals, often-disguised, to reach out to those with latent racial prejudices.

    “And speaking of the welfare state, a condition directly responsible for the destruction of the black family, Norway is called the Golden Cage by many of its citizens. It is true there is no visible poverty there.”

    Please show proof that welfare destroyed the black family. All hitherto sociological research has not produced this conclusion.

    Who exactly calls Norway a Golden Cage?

    ” But there is no freedom there either at least in the sense that older Americans understand. The 17% VAT tax combined with an almost 50% tax on income is a very real restriction on those who seek private medical treatment, want to send their kids to private schools or do any number of other things that stray from the perfect utopia laid out for them by the government.”

    First of all I would be inclined to call BS on some of this; but many Europeans pay much higher taxes and yet they do not constantly complain about taxes. Do you know why? Because they get their tax money back in the form of government sources they use.

    After social security, most of your federal tax money goes to the Pentagon to pay for things which will never benefit you in any way. And yet you thought food stamps were the problem.

    “I do not oppose Obama because he is black. I oppose him because he is a domestic enemy I swore to defend my country against.”

    Please explain why he is a domestic enemy.

    ” I did not oppose Jimmy Carter because he is white. I opposed him because he was an incompetent idiot which he continues to demonstrate to this day.”

    Well he did let himself get talked into supporting the Afghan mujahadeen, among other unsavory groups. But the distinction is interesting. Carter is just “incompetent”, but Obama is a “domestic enemy”. Why the difference?

    So, yet again I have given you more reasons why people call you a racist.

    I also notice you make a number of assertions which you do not back up with evidence, and you also repeat many racial “memes” about black people which in many cases are totally unfounded(e.g. welfare destroyed the black family). Did you say things like this around your wife when you were married? Is this the kind of thing her friends complained about?

  • Dick Lancaster

    First, to the topic. It is easy to see from both from Potok’s article and some commentary why I am a racist. It doesn’t matter what I am, it is how my political opponents wish to define me that makes me a racist. My opposition to their political views and not my experiences of a lifelong interaction with the black community, including a 7 year marriage and a 4 year hitch in the military is my primary sin. My rational arguments can be dismissed because I am labeled a racist.
    But having been associated with the other race for so long I am privy to much of the dirty laundry. One of these loads is the light skin/dark skin controversy. You see, there is an inherent racism within the black community itself solely based on skin tone. This, as well as the very real and very recent history of oppression is one of the primary reasons we cannot advance past the name-calling stage and fix our problems. The first fix must come from within the black community itself.
    There are those too in the black community that don’t want these problems fixed. They generate enormous amounts of income for race baiters like Jesse Jackson and the Street Clown. And yes, indeed it was the Republicans that freed the slaves and blacks swarmed to it during the post war years up until Wilson’s administration. That’s when the Democrats co-opted many blacks as well as many others with the welfare state. It was George Wallace D. AL who barred the door of the university to black students.
    And speaking of the welfare state, a condition directly responsible for the destruction of the black family, Norway is called the Golden Cage by many of its citizens. It is true there is no visible poverty there. But there is no freedom there either at least in the sense that older Americans understand. The 17% VAT tax combined with an almost 50% tax on income is a very real restriction on those who seek private medical treatment, want to send their kids to private schools or do any number of other things that stray from the perfect utopia laid out for them by the government.
    I do not oppose Obama because he is black. I oppose him because he is a domestic enemy I swore to defend my country against. I did not oppose Jimmy Carter because he is white. I opposed him because he was an incompetent idiot which he continues to demonstrate to this day.
    And to cap this entry, I’d like to say that I do not believe my friend Skinnyminnie means anything she posted in her last commentary. I believe she was letting off steam. And the reason I believe that is because I’ve always read her posts to understand her position, not to search for ammo to shoot down her arguments. And her positions, in keeping with her experiences as posted here, are quite reasonable even though I hardly agree with most of them. I believe we could actually become good friends if we ever met and put our politics aside.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Lou, when Americans go to Mexico, like in most countries, they receive a 90-minute visa at passport control, usually the stamp itself counts. The converse is not true. Because of this system, many American citizens work illegally in a number of countries around the world(including Mexico), simply doing “visa runs” every three months(crossing and re-crossing a border). Most countries don’t raise a fuss about it because the Americans are usually doing some kind of job which is useful to that society, such as teaching.

    If it were easier to obtain temporary work visas in the US, people wouldn’t be jumping the border, and human traffickers would be at a loss. But for some reason, the anti-immigration crowd, which says it has no problem with legal immigrants, isn’t interested in this solution. I wonder why.

  • skinnyminny

    Buz,
    I’m laughing so hard at your comment, ‘republicans freed blacks.’ Why gee, isn’t that the good ol’ past, now the blacks are chimps, subhuman, should be deported…as a black woman, I can surely say I don’t feel any love or respect coming from the republican party of today! In fact, I know the republicans want to put blacks back into bondage, slavery, prison and whatever they can to hurt or kill us. As a black woman, I am asking you to prove me wrong.

  • Louis Stouch

    well it didnt take long Ruslan. Everything one wants to know about the Norwegian welfare state right here:

    http://norwegiansociety.blogsp.....d-war.html.

    For those that are interested. Yes a little off topic, but interesting nonetheless.

    Oh, and immigrants comprise 11.4% of Norwegian society, with a net in migration of around 1% per year. I do seem to recall that they are having serious difficulties in assimilating a certain ethnic group – violent crime, you see – but that is another conversation. I can provide references though, indeed.

  • Louis Stouch

    Pretty nice retort Ruslan, and without sarcasm this time – I am impressed. I will check it out. And I will add this – I recall reading where many countries have more restrictive immigration policies than do we.

    I specifically remember Mexico, who of course is suing the State of Arizona. What cheek. Anyways, illegals were arrested, jailed, and deported. Period, no questions asked. Their illegals being their South American neighbors. I do believe they recently ammended this process, but still.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    If I may just tally up the score so far, several conservative posters have claimed that SPLC, among other groups are calling people racist for being against Obama.

    Thus far, they have failed to provide any instance of anyone on this board saying thus.

    Thank you.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “Geez, Ruslan, could it be because the Norwegians have not allowed unlimited immigration? Could it be because they dont have 12 million illegals from another culture? Could it be because they have – like the Japanese – a more cohesive/homogenous society?”

    Nope. Norway has pretty open immigration laws like the rest of Europe. I don’t even know where you came up with the idea that they are somehow more strict than the USA, which has some of the strictest immigration/visa laws in the Western world. If you don’t believe me feel free to look up Norwegian nationalist sites. They’ll probably inflate the numbers a bit but I’m sure they won’t be satisfied with the system in place there.

    Norway has a higher standard of living because instead of dumping its money into a military-industrial complex, invading and occupying foreign countries, and privatizing and/or deregulating everything in sight, they use their money to fund society, education, job-retraining(which is why workers in Scandinavian countries don’t fear layoffs so much), and of course, health care.

    So nice try there.

    @Buz: “You people never cease to amaze me . You hate and despise everything “We” love. You hate the South. You hate conservatives. You hate Republicans , who freed the Blacks. Yet you call us rasist, bigits. and all sorts of not nice things. Why do you want to be in a nation with us? Wouldn’t you be a lot happier just to kick us out and live happily ever after in your bastion of liberal love. Do you want it to be unlawful to disagree with you or your philosphy. Sounds a little like a totolitarian system. Please if you can’t accept us kick us out. We will be happy to leave. You can have CokeaCola and Delta but we West Virginia back… Buz”

    Real thoughts from a REAL American. Thanks a lot. You make it easy for us totololololololotarians.

  • Louis Stouch

    Ruslan…..

    Dick, explain why Norway has the highest standard of living while simultaneously having the highest government spending, particularly on welfare programs. It is by any definition, a “nanny-state”, far more than the US. You will also see that in the industrialized world, the more governments put into welfare the better their standards of living……………….

    Geez, Ruslan, could it be because the Norwegians have not allowed unlimited immigration? Could it be because they dont have 12 million illegals from another culture? Could it be because they have – like the Japanese – a more cohesive/homogenous society?

    I seem to recall your favoring immigration and amnesty, and if I am correct in that assumption, you just killed your own argument. Brilliant! (If not your argument, then the SPLC’s.)

  • skinnyminny

    Dick Lancaster,
    I’d like to respond to you quote about ‘ignorant voters.’ First off, I’d like to say, do the tea groups know anything about the D? I mean, really, they say they want to decrease government spending…did they know that the D recently sued a small town for $100 million dollars? Really! He sued the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, Califas, because he was denied naming a street after himself! The residents were already angered because they said his development blocked their panoramic views. The D accused the city officials of fraud and civil rights violations. LOL! This was in 2007/2008!

    Did you know that the D loves public fights – these are the alleged incidents, Mark Cuban, was called a loser on ESPN. He allegedly said this about my favorite actor Robert DeNiro, “he’s not the brightest bulb on the planet.” He allegedly said that George W. Bush was the worst president ever.

    Now, how many voters do you think will side with him? He said that he will do away with illegal immigration after the news of Meg Whitman. I think that will take care of some of the Latin American immigrants who have family members that are citizens. He has tried to ridicule the Prez, which is equally offensive to most black Americans who are citizens. He has ridiculed Rosie O’Donnell, which is equally offensive to the LGBT community. And again, people who are big fans of Robert DeNiro, well, I guess you can count them out too.

    Ignorant voters, I don’t think so! I think we are the type of voters that don’t fall for the hype! We are the type of voters that don’t just go along with the program! We didn’t just go along with the program when the GOP wanted to amend the Constitution so that Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president. Remember that! Oh, but now, it’s all about following the Constitution, but, interpreting it anyway you see fit, or amending it to the way you want it to fit?

  • Jordan

    “This article is a product of Hate because it isn’t focused on Obama’s Birth Certificate, but rather name calling and character assassination of a group or person seeking information we as Americans are untitled to know.

    Just one, just name ONE other president (you have 43 options) who have had their citizenship questioned. Obama is not the most liberal democrat, nor the most conservative, he does not fight to pass bills tooth and nail nor does he fold and compromise. He is not the youngest or the oldest. There is ONLY one outstanding thing about his presidency that you will never admit. Ohh, yeah, and accusing someone of falsifying their own birthcertificate and being a secret Kenyan, Muslim, alien, antichrist, etc., etc., etc, is definitely not character assasination, right?

  • Buz Thompson

    You people never cease to amaze me . You hate and despise everything “We” love. You hate the South. You hate conservatives. You hate Republicans , who freed the Blacks. Yet you call us rasist, bigits. and all sorts of not nice things. Why do you want to be in a nation with us? Wouldn’t you be a lot happier just to kick us out and live happily ever after in your bastion of liberal love. Do you want it to be unlawful to disagree with you or your philosphy. Sounds a little like a totolitarian system. Please if you can’t accept us kick us out. We will be happy to leave. You can have CokeaCola and Delta but we West Virginia back… Buz

  • Lex

    My estimate is that 70% of the birthers are racist ,the other 30% are the tinfoil hat wearing crazy´s who buy into every conspiracy theory they come across

  • Louis Stouch

    Fact Check? The Annenburgs? Paragons of conservative values no doubt.

    Whatever Ruslan. I was under the mistaken impression that the intent was to enforce Federal law. I stand corrected IF Factcheck is correct.

    Regardless, though, I believe the real intent was to raise the issue in such a way that it could not be ignored. And in that, me thinks it was a resounding success. I dont think we will need to be worrying about blanket amnesty and/or voting rights for illegals ala La Raza for quite awhile now.

  • Leslie

    @Dick

    One of the reasons we have illegal immigration is because of capitalism–not because of socialism. Businesses want to hire cheap labor–its as simple as that. However big business will use the taxpayer funded services for its own ends. For example, workers at Wall Mart are often given the social service forms for food stamps upon being hired. Their part time jobs don’t cover the basic necessities so the state steps in. It isn’t because of socialism but because of capitalism that Wall Mart prefers pert time workers that are not able to unionize.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    As usual Stouch, your chain e-mail based claims are false: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/.....lease-law/

    As for illegal immigration, since the businessmen want the immigrants, the fastest, most efficient, cheapest way to solve this problem is for some kind of guestworker program, 90 day visas for Mexico and other Latin American countries, etc. In other words, MAKE LEGAL IMMIGRATION EASIER.

    But for some strange reason, nobody on the anti-illegal immigration side is interested in that..I wonder why.

    @Russell: That’s some fine butchery of the English language there, but the fact is that Obama went through the same vetting process as everyone else, which incidentally does not entail the public display of one’s birth certificate, long or short, the latter of which he displayed years ago.

  • Russell

    This whole article is hate related.
    It us using the power of Internet to incite incriminating theories of a few. Pitting negative labels and character assassinations on so called breathers. Showing proof of a birth certificate is the first qualification of being a president. Obama is no exception. This article is a product of Hate because it isn’t focused on Obama’s Birth Certificate, but rather name calling and character assassination of a group or person seeking information we as Americans are untitled to know.

  • Louis Stouch

    Indeed, Stouch, I am at your service. You are correct that Obama, like other public servants, is sworn to defend the Constitution. However, that same constitution says that States don’t have the right to pass immigration policy, as it is in the realm of the federal government……………………

    Amirkhanov, you are a piece of work. Arizona was not “passing Immigration Policy”. They passed a law which simply enforced EXISTGING FEDERAL Immigration policy. Nothing new here Amirkhanov, no new Policy. Simply enforcement of existing policy.

    But your lack of understanding is not surprising in one who no doubt doesnt understand conservatives position on Illegal Immigration. The question is simple – what dont you understand about the word ILLEGAL? Must be the same thing you dont undrstand about enforcing EXISTING Federal policy.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “We’ve gotten a bit off topic and it is useless to continue debate with people that think communism embraces the underclass, that “general welfare” in the Preamble has any thing to do with “welfare state” and confuses “territories” with “states”.”

    Dick, if we’ve gone off topic it’s because you routinely ignore numerous posts that are directed TO you, often in response to your own questions.

    For example, you made an assertion that people accuse those who oppose Obama as being racist. I asked you to show where the SPLC, or anyone here, has been writing thus. I informed you that despite being white, and openly opposed to Obama, nobody ever even implies that I am racist. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?

    Anyway, Communism “embraces”(your words) the working class, meaning those who must sell their labor power in the marketplace to obtain their means of living.

    “Race does indeed play a factor in politics largely due to the efforts of the SPLC to invent new waves of it. It also played a sugnificant factor in the last Presidential election because we allow ignorant people to vote who saw the history and novelty of a black president and thus voted for novelty rather than notice he had no depth to his history.”

    Oh yes, race plays a factor, but in your world it only benefits non-white people, despite the tons of evidence showing the precise opposite is true.

    Also did anyone ever tell you that there were TWO choices for president? Notice that Obama’s opposition consisted of a Republican who was often out of favor with his party, couldn’t mobilize their traditional base, and picked someone so incredibly moronic for a running mate that prominent conservatives were embarrassed?

    “Ignorant voters are the product of our school system, led by outside donors such as SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance. ”

    So what you’re trying to say is that you went to public school?

    “The “tolerance” word in that title is similar to the “people” word in “people’s rebublic”.

    Uh..no.

    “If you align your malignant cause with an altruistic and just one, you can lull the people to sleep. This is how the left co-opted the civil rights movement. Thus the left is altruistic and its opponents racist.”

    Again, I have explained to you again and again why people might be calling you racist, based on the very words you have written here. Go back and read a few of those sometimes.

    ” For all of you intellectuals that support the left and actually believe socialism is an altruistic system, that is historically true only for threatened people. The Israeli Kibbutz is the star example. Buy even the Kibutz had a higher national authority and our own communes disintegrated when the peace loving residents found out some were doing much more work than others to support the group.”

    The Kibbutzim naturally changed as capitalism took root in Israel; these communal farms are by no means unique. Such forms of communism existed in pioneer America as well. What is your point?

    “No national nanny state has ever afforded its people a middle class. We are watching ours disappear.”

    Dick, explain why Norway has the highest standard of living while simultaneously having the highest government spending, particularly on welfare programs. It is by any definition, a “nanny-state”, far more than the US. You will also see that in the industrialized world, the more governments put into welfare the better their standards of living.

    The middle class is disappearing because too many of them got into debt, which was the compensation for stagnant real-wages since 1970. In addition to this, there was outsourcing, among many other factors. The last factor is because this middle class ignored its own interest and too many egotistical morons thought that following the free-market ideologues and supporting tax-cut-promising politicians would make them all rich. How the mighty fall.

    “The opponents you call racists are actually political opponents which you have successfully demonized to equate with racists.”

    You are called racist for saying things which are racist, even if the offense wasn’t intentional, even if you used some clever euphemism. For example, you continually imply in your posts that Obama’s blackness won him the presidency. This factor sticks out more than anything else to you for some reason, almost as if you resent blacks and think they are given some kind of privilege they don’t deserve.

    Maybe you believe that without consciously or intentionally being a racist, and I’m sure that you act in good faith towards all other races you encounter, but that sentiment may be construed as racist by someone who is non-white. White privilege means never having to think about how your talk on race will be interpreted.

    ” It is the one thing I admire about the left–their understanding of the baseness of the human race to be secure. The traditionalists are always at a disadvantage because freedom means the allowance of such malignancies.”

    Well you “traditionalists” have quite a few other problems. For example, not being able to explain the usefulness of your traditions, or believing certain things were traditional when they weren’t.

    ” But scores of them debate me in this forum.”

    Dick, it’s not really a debate when you just ignore every question or argument put to you repeatedly, instead choosing to bombard us with more bumper sticker politics.