Letters to the Editor
rphillips111
Published Letters: 201 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Tell the simple truth and be called a "racist"?
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Folks, the corrosive results of the hysteria of Political Correctness become more apparent every day. The definition of "racist" hs become this: anytime anyone disagrees with an individual of another ethnicity, that person is a "Racist". Bill Clinton was even called a racist for equating Obama and Jesse Jackson in South Carolina? What? Are you serious?
The perversion of perception and suppression of truth and free expression is monstrous when a black person can use the "N" word and a white person is fired from their job or "re-educated" (a staple marxist technique)through "diversity training". When we can have Black History Month, Black History and Black Studies courses in colleges and that's not "racism", but we can't have White History month, White history and White studies courses in colleges, because that would be "racism". One of the premier pro immigration groups states part of the goal for increased immigration is to "rebalance" the racial makeup of the country. In other words, make the country less white.
Bill and Hillary Clinton, far from being prejudiced, have helped bring about this disgusting state of affairs. Were the present hysteria less dangerous to our society and government (the freedom of speech guarantee in the Bill of Rights is routinely ignored and even prohibited), one could almost find satisfaction in the criticism the Clintons are getting. But the perverted definition of "racism" which has infected our society is dangerous to our liberties, our society, and to the simple truth. It is ok for black folks to vote for Obama because he is black. Not only ok, it is natural. It is equally ok, and it is natural for white folks to vote for white candidates. Marxist formulas for compulsory equality are unnatural, dishonest, and dictatorial, and require a totalitarian government/society to succeed. That is the antithesis of everything our nation stands for.
-
Person, on your post
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Regarding your claim there was nothing unfair about Obama achieving his present premier status in the campaign. That is not exactly true.
The media has backed Obama to an unprecedented degree, not only in attacks on Hillary Clinton, unflattering photos, and the usual media techniques used to trash candidates, but also by its refusal to research and reveal the true Obama to the public. The pro Obama posters are part of the campaign, mobilized to answer charges and attack Hillary Clinton in venues such as this, and their attacks have been merciless, dishonest, and unfair. Not the least example of the Obama posters is the charge the Clintons are racists. The Clintons are not racists, and not one statement--including Ferrarro's truthful comment that Obama is where he is today because he is black--justifies any "racial" criticism. The Obama campaign, through its supporters, has tried to create the impression the Clintons are racists--which is fales.
As for the caucuses, they are undemocratic. People have to pay to attend some of them, do not have to be party members, the process involves a fairly small number of people, and the process is dominated by activists and the organized--which may not reflect the community nor the state as a whole in candidate preferences. Unlike primaries where people vote, caucuses usually have several ballots which allow for horsetrading and buyouts in the process, unlike Primaries. Caucses are organized dealmaking by a small coterie of people, the the marxist community organizer like Obama has an edge. Caucuses should play much smaller roles in picking Presidential candidates.
Finally, super delegates are free to vote as they please because a major reason for them is to prevent the party from making a mistake in choosing a presidnetial nominaee. Most of them actually are office holders and reponsible to their cistrists or states. So when you claim super delegates should merely follow the most votes, which "most votes" are you talking about? The candidate who carried individual super delegates district in the primary, or the candidate who got the most votes nationally? I can tell you that if my canidate for president carried my congressional district and my super delegate chose to vote for the other candidate because he or she got the most votes nationally, I would od everything possible to defeat my congressman who voted against the wishes of his district. The National vote be damned, because Presidential elections are held state by state through the electoral college. The National popular vote doe snot matter when choosing Presidents, and shouldn't be the deciding factor when choosing nominees