The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on July 15, 2014, 12:46:46 am
-
http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-dems-want-hillary-in-16-so-they-can-decry-all-criticism-as-sexist/ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-dems-want-hillary-in-16-so-they-can-decry-all-criticism-as-sexist/)
Limbaugh: Dems Want Hillary in ’16 so They Can Decry All Criticism as Sexist
by Josh Feldman | 5:14 pm, July 14th, 2014
In the midst of going off on Democrats crying racism, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Democrats are beside themselves trying to push for Hillary Clinton in 2016 so that when she runs and if she wins, Democrats can decry criticism of her as sexist.
Eric Holder said yesterday that there’s a “racial animus” to some of the criticism of President Obama, and Limbaugh said that there is no criticism of the president that is permitted for that specific reason. He charged that the GOP “has, by and large, been shut down [and] their reluctance to be critical of anything Obama is doing is rooted in the fact that they don’t want to be called racist by the media.”
And he said that’s exactly why Clinton’s at the top of the list for 2016.
“This is why the Democrats are salivating at Hillary or Elizabeth Warren being the next president because it would be the same thing. Any criticism of the first woman president would be sexist, and it would be therefore unqualified. Then after that, if they succeed, then they’ll go out and recruit the first Hispanic, and it’ll be the same thing.”
Listen to the audio at link
-
Someone had to say it.
-
Someone had to say it.
Yup.
-
At the root of all "identity politics" is the idea that human value is defined not by ability, knowledge or effort, but by immutable physical characteristics. 5000 years of human civilization and intellectual progress are being immolated in a fire of willful ignorance and fear.
-
So it means their next candidate after Hillary, win or lose in 2016, will be either a Hispanic, Asian, or a homosexual.
-
So it means their next candidate after Hillary, win or lose in 2016, will be either a Hispanic, Asian, or a homosexual.
Or some combination thereof.
Probably not enough Asians in the pipeline to really have any prospects in that ethnicity yet.
But Julian Castro and Cory Booker are being groomed...
-
Andy wrote above:
[[ At the root of all "identity politics" is the idea that human value is defined not by ability, knowledge or effort, but by immutable physical characteristics. 5000 years of human civilization and intellectual progress are being immolated in a fire of willful ignorance and fear. ]]
Andy, I take exception to this, and welcome your rebuttal. You're a much smarter guy than me, so my arguments should be easy to shoot down.
If there is to be any hope for conservatives and traditionalists in America, it is through something which either may resemble (or may actually outright be) "identity politics". That is to say, the remaining majority (yes, still a majority, that's what the current border invasion is designed to destroy) of Euro-Americans must be drawn together to counter the anti-American behavior of the non-Euros pouring in. And to also counter the objectives of those leftists who encourage the invasion.
The "5,000 years of ... intellectual progress" you speak of above were the result largely of one group of people, all of whom shared similar "physical characteristics".
Western civilization -- the pinnacle of "ability, knowledge [and] effort" (again, your words) -- sprung from those people. That's why we call it "Western" civilization in the first place.
Can there be any question why those of the left in power are trying to -destroy- much of the foundation of that civilization, by re-educating the young to loathe and hate the "old white men" who created it, and by removing their names from the books of history?
To all those who would reply that such an argument is ridiculous, I again offer the behavior of Euro-Americans in the deep south, where overwhelming majorities of whites vote Republican.
It wasn't always this way -- fifty years ago they didn't call it the "solid South" for nuthin'. Solid democrats, that is.
But that certainly changed. Call it racis' if you wish, but the reason that whites now vote the way they do in the southern states is because they know that their survival (by "survival" I mean their only chance to counter "black rule") depends upon them "identifying" themselves -as a group- (Euro), and then voting to preserve and protect the interests of that group.
If they didn't, they would fall victim to state and local governments that would be dominated by blacks and democrats. Kind of like Reconstruction all over again, only with the left crackin' the whips this time.
Southern whites engage in "identity politics" out of self-preservation.
If it works there (regionally), it can work elsewhere -- in other regions, and possibly on a national level as well.
I have no problems with "black identity politics", or "Hispanic identity politics", or what-have-you. To them, this is normal behavior, and it's not going to change any time soon. There is only ONE group of Americans that continues to insist that they're "above" such behavior. Look at where that's gettin' us.
While writing this piece, I was thinking about something I had read earlier today, a quote that I remembered the gist of, but not the author.
Here it is, out of an op-ed by Patrick J. Buchanan posted elsewhere this evening:
[[ In Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote, "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs ..." ]]
This is what "identity" is about.
The fight that's going on now for America is existential. It requires that lines be drawn, sides be taken, and "identities" established.
The other side knows this.
When will -we- learn ???