If You Oppose ObamaCare You're RAAAAACIST and UNEDUCATED!!

Out of the blue, I got this on Twitter earlier this morning:

I replied here.

@SinglePlayer then blocked me, typical for a leftist totalitarian.

RELATED: At Doug Ross, "New England Journal of Medicine Inadvertently Hands House GOP the Game Plan for Starving ObamaCare." If you can't completely kill it (right away), squeeze funding until implementation becomes impossible:

The ACA contains 64 specific authorizations to spend up to $105.6 billion and 51 general authorizations to spend “such sums as are necessary” over the period between 2010 and 2019. None of these funds will flow, however, unless Congress enacts specific appropriation bills. In addition, section 1005 of the ACA appropriated $1 billion to support the cost of implementation in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).... [and the] ACA appropriated nothing for the Internal Revenue Service, which must collect the information needed to compute subsidies and pay them. The ACA also provides unlimited funding for grants to states to support the creation of health insurance exchanges (section 1311). But states will also incur substantially increased administrative costs to enroll millions of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries...

Without large additional appropriations, implementation will be crippled.

And thank goodness. That would be like a symphony.

See Dr. Marc Siegel, "ObamaCare Will Clog America's Medical System":

ObamaCare was lauded by many for covering all Americans with pre-existing conditions. That's not the issue. We're going to get into trouble because of the kinds of coverage that the new law mandates. There are no brakes on the system. Co-pays and deductibles will be kept low, and preventive services will have no co-pays at all. That sounds like a good deal for patients, yes? But without at least a pause to consider necessity and/or cost, expect waiting times to increase, ERs to be clogged and longer lead times needed to make an appointment.

Patients with new Medicaid cards who can't find a doctor will go where? To emergency rooms. The escalating costs of these visits (necessary and unnecessary) will be transferred directly to the American public, both in the form of taxes as well as escalating insurance premiums.

Beginning in 2014, insurance exchanges will be set up in every state so that individuals can choose a health insurance plan. This will help control costs, right? Wrong. Don't expect to find individually tailored plans or those with higher deductibles or co-pays. They won't be there because they can't receive the government stamp of approval.

In the new system, my patients will be able to see me as often as they'd like. But will they get the same level of care? I don't think so. I anticipate that more expensive chemotherapies and cardiac stents or transplants, for instance, will have a tougher time being approved, as is already the case in Canada.

Over on the public side, the new Independent Payment Advisory Board — established by the health reform law to "recommend proposals to limit Medicare spending growth" — will advise Medicare that some treatments are more essential and more cost-effective than others. I believe that value judgments inevitably will have to be made, reducing my options as a practicing physician. Private insurers will follow suit, as they often do.

During the battle over this reform, you often heard, even from President Obama, that you'd be able to keep the plan you have. What he didn't say — but what we now know — is that because of this new law, the private markets will have to remake their plans, that the costs will rise and that the plan you were told you could "keep" is in all likelihood no longer available. But when your plan changes, backers of reform will simply blame it on those evil private insurance companies.

The truth is, private health insurance is a low-profit industry, with profit margins of 4% compared with over 20% for major drug manufacturers. With the additional costs of no lifetime caps and no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, these companies will be compelled to raise their premiums in order to stay in business. The individual mandate is supposed to be the tradeoff by providing millions of new customers, but there is no guarantee that this additional volume will preserve profits with all the new regulations. This is what occurred in New York state in 1992, when a new law denied exclusion on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

Clogged emergency rooms, death-panel rationing, and reduced consumer choice.

That's what @SinglePayer is all about.

Where's Michael Steele?

I had no idea Chairman Steele was going to be in Anaheim. I was suprised when he came up on stage with the O.C. congressional delegation. I don't think anyone really cares for him, but as many have noted, firing Steele would be attacked as RAAAAACIST by the lefty chattering classes, so the dude's safe.

That said, according to Fred Barnes, Steele's nowhere to be seen this electoral season, "Mr. Steele and the Irrelevant RNC":

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele is the missing person of the midterm election. Instead of cable news appearances and debates with Democratic counterpart Tim Kaine, Mr. Steele has spent the past month leading a "Fire Pelosi" bus tour across the country.

His small role in the campaign, highly unusual for a party chairman, is matched by the scaled back effort the RNC has mounted in 2010. And no one is happier than Mr. Steele's many Republican detractors, glad to see he's attracting little attention from the national media.

Since Mr. Steele was elected chairman last year, the RNC has raised almost $153.7 million, roughly $90 million less than in 2006. It has aired only a few TV ads and its get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drive is considerably less ambitious than in previous midterm elections.

Yet Republicans, including Mr. Steele, appear satisfied with the division of labor in the campaign. What the RNC isn't doing, well-financed outside groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Republican Governor's Association (RGA) are. Mr. Steele's bus tour doesn't interfere. Exploiting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's unpopularity, it has drawn largely favorable coverage from local and regional media.

This improvised arrangement is entirely fortuitous. The so-called independent expenditure groups were established to counter campaign spending on behalf of Democrats by liberal groups, particularly the Service Employees International Union, the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. They also aimed to offset the fund-raising advantage (now 1.5 to 1) of Democratic candidates.

The need to bail out the RNC arose last year after it quickly ran through $22.8 million and had trouble replenishing its war chest. Reliable donors were turned off by Mr. Steele's overexposure in the media, his insistence on making paid speeches as chairman, and statements that put him at odds with other Republican leaders.

The RNC brought in $9.7 million in September, $4 million short of its goal. This compares with $11.2 million raised last month by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which supports House candidates. And the RGA, led by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, raised $31 million in July, August and September.

Many congressional Republicans and governors no longer trust Mr. Steele as their spokesman. They tend to work around the RNC rather than engage Mr. Steele. He does have supporters, and he has recruited an experienced staff. But his dismissal of Rush Limbaugh on CNN as an "entertainer" and other statements have stirred criticism.

RTWT.

Whoa. That's worse that I though.

Barnes notes that the RNC chair's term is two years, not four. But with the Dems' expected whomping come November, my bet is that Steele successfully deflects critics and hangs on for another two. And that'll mean that the GOP will be retaking the White House without the national party at the center of campaign coordination in the general election. Some political scientists have long argued that the political parties were dead (they've never been the same since the decline of the old big city party machines a century ago). And it turns out that Michael Steele's providing a significant data point toward validating that thesis.

Photo via Facebook.

Comparative Crowd Analysis and the Left's 'Overwhelmingly White' Tea Party Smear

One of the characterizations I noticed with the reporting on yesterday's Sarah Palin rally was that the crowd was "overwhelmingly white" (at the O.C. Register). Kevin Drum of Mother Jones picked up on that. He lives in the O.C., but didn't know there was a GOP rally. Hence, he wasn't even there. But as a radical leftist of "white" ethnic background, he jumped at the chance to sling around the distorted "overwhelmingly white" concept as a smear against the tea parties. White guilt much? Plus, left-wing extremist Blue Texan at Firedoglake once again attempts a "racist" slur against the tea parties, alleging that the grassroots citizen protesters are the same as Timothy McVeigh and the stereotypical "Angry White Men":

Polls have shown that Teabaggers are lilly white and well off. They’re not the people getting kicked out of their houses by the banksters. They’re not unemployed. They’re not bearing the brunt of the Great Recession. They’re just doing what they do when Democrats are in charge. Obama’s death panels and FEMA camps have replaced Clinton’s black helicopters.

And of course, the fact that this president’s middle name is Hussein and he’s Muslim and black, well, that’s just a few extra scoops of nuts on the wingnut sundae.

Interesting.

The Washington Post just reported the other day on the virtually non-existent expressions of racism at the tea parties, but leftists ignore the facts, since they have nothing but hypocrisy and lies.

And on a more personal level is the evidence from my own reporting this weekend. I attended two major party rallies, and I posted two reports: "President Bill Clinton in the O.C. — Stumps for Loretta Sanchez, Blames George W. Bush for Economic Crisis," and "Sarah Palin Rallies GOP at 'Victory 2010' in Anaheim."

And we therefore have two roughly identical crowd photographs we can use for comparative purposes:

The picture at top shows the crowd in attendance at the start of the Democrat Party rally for Rep. Loretta Sanchez. Former President Bill Clinton was the marquee speaker. It's safe to say that this is about as close as one comes to a "mainstream" Democrat Party rally. And look at the crowd: White people are over-represented if we adopt the left's "overwhelmingly white" tea party slur. Or put another way, not enough DeShawns and Joses kicking it for Clinton. Oh sure, as I walked up at 3:00pm both blacks and Latinos were there in significant numbers, so stereotypically we could say this was indeed a Democrat demographic. But picture this same group of people above at a tea party in Missouri or Texas, etc., wearing more red-and-blue apparel and sporting some anti-Obama signs, and we'd be hearing cries of RAAAAACISM!! faster than you can say John Lewis, André Carson, and Emanuel Cleaver.

And checking the bottom photo from the Palin rally above, is that an "overwhelmingly white" crowd? Perhaps. But not so much more "white" than those gathered to hear Bill Clinton speak. And not shown at the GOP rally are the Latino couples standing next to me (out of the picture), or the Vietnamese-American activists supporting Van Tran. Here's another shot as well, taken a little earlier, showing some more folks of diverse backgrounds.

And what would be the response from a leftist to this argument? Well, they'd count the black and brown faces and decry the RAAAAACISM!!. Of course, only the GOP rally would be RAAAAACIST!! Meanwhile, there are 14 black conservative congressional candidates running for election around the country, but they're all Republicans so the MFM is conveniently ignoring them amid its constant whining about the party being "overwhelmingly white."

Everybody knows that RAAAAACISM!! is all the Dems have left. But that card's all played out. People just need to look around. We're all Americans. We have different philosophies on the role of government in society. One key difference among Republicans is they seek a color-blind America, not one divided along lines of racial tribalism. Or as Chief Justice John Roberts has argued: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Obama 'Sho Be Looking Ugly'

Hey hypocritical leftist assholes: SaQuinta Bentley is RAAAAACIST!!

Yeah.

Because, you know, it's totally racist if black people use "derogatory" ethnic slang. Whatever. Let's just say the mofo Obama is f**ked up in da hood:

Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers, "Feeling The Love From That Black Vote."

'There's nothing at Fox Nation about menthols, drugs, or mothafucka's. Just a headline about gangsta rap...'

That's Repsac3 (banned at American Power, although he continues to harass this blog in the comments), calling me a racist and a liar. Yeah. That's all they got --- again!

And no, despite Repsac3's protests, not to mention Roy Edroso's, the photoshop is not RAAAAACIST. It's hilarious. And yes, I'm paraphrasing Fox Nation, despite Reppy's claim that there's "nothing at Fox Nation ..." Blah. Blah. For example:

Meanwhile, this excerpt has quickly made its way to one of the GOP's terror dungeons, Fox Nation, which posts it under the headline, "President of the United States Loves Gangsta Rap." It makes for a lively discussion in the comments, with what we'd imagine to be constant scrubbing from moderators. Here's "eagletimberwolf," however.

SINCE HE AIN'T IN THE ALOHA STATE ANYMORE, HE HAD TO TRADE IN THE COOL BREEZE, TASTY WAVES, AND FATTY BLUNTS FOR MENTHOL CIGARETTES, A CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP TO GET THROUGH THE HEAVY DAYS. HOPE HIS GIRLS DON'T TURN INTO RUMP SHAKIN' BACKUP DANCERS...

And personally, I don't care if these commie freaks wanna holla RAAAAACISM!! and LIAR!! It's paraphrased. Funny too. Now blow chunks down your fail commie stinkhole.

Obama Loves Gangsta Rap

Well, yeah.

Lil Wayne doin' time for attempted weapons possession, yo! And some lefty lamebrains have issues? You mean, it's RAAAAACIST!! to be snarkin' dat POTUS BE DOWN WID DE FATTY BLUNTS AND MENTHOLS, MOFO CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP? (That's paraphrasing Fox Nation, before anyone gets uptight about it — hilarious, if you ask me!)

She's on fire
Put her out, as a matter of fact, take her out
Got on my knees and asked my lord to keep me clear from the devil cause my girl
She's on fire

Yeaaa, And everything is so cool
I want them back shots
I said shorty let me play up in them matchbox
shorty she’s on fire,
shorty let a n-gga rub this stick cos this a matchbox,
she’s steaming, she’s screaming,
she’s she’s screaming
she’s feinding I redeem it
I get between it, like her, like her,

now hit me,
now shes on fire,
Yeahh, I let the steam blow, yeah
but everything is cool...

RELATED: "Lil Wayne Readies New Album as Release From Prison Nears."

This is What America is All About

Giving everyone a chance to succeed? Hey, isn't that RAAAAACIST??!!

Hot ad from Allen West, via Weasel Zippers:

Racism Roundup — Horrible RAAAAACIST Reaction to Jersey Shore Obama-Osama Fun Zone

Folks should check the comments at Gawker, "Horrible Obama-Smashing Carnival Game Wows Jersey Shore Patrons."

I swear, leftists are the biggest racists. Where do people get this stuff?

Recall my post the other day.

While I thought the Obama-Rama game disrespectful, I noted that "at least it gives desperate lefties another chance to scream RAAAAACIST!!"

And right on cue, here's some of the responses, illustrated with ugly Jim Crow racist illustrations, with applause from the usual suspects:

Another day, another post about prejudice and racism in America. Ah! just another normal day in post-racial America. Let me go back to drinking my tea and reading my newspaper. What else is new?

Obama-Rama at Jersey Shore — That's RAAAAACIST!!

I love the fact that you can almost take out Obama and Osama at the same time. But seriously, I'd say the leftist outrage is a bit much, since everything from guillotines to Bush assassination movies greeted the 43rd occupant of the White House. Well, at least it gives desperate lefties another chance to scream RAAAAACIST!!

RELATED: "Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years."

BONUS: "Hate-o-Crat Eliminationism: Leftists Move to 'Get Rid of Republicans Entirely'."

UPDATE: Also blogging, Doug Ross, "'Horrible' Jersey Shore Boardwalk Carnival Game Doesn't Depict Bush 43 Being Hung, Defecated Upon or Set Afire," and Left Coast Rebel, "(VIDEO) Obama-rama Boardwalk Fair Game at The Jersey Shore (Seaside Heights, New Jersey)."

And Blazing Cat Fur too! ... "Obama at the Jersey Shore."

Birtherism Lives? Only 42 Percent of Americans Believe Obama Is a Citizen

It's kinda funny, but it just occurred to me that the folks so insistent that President Obama is fully eligible to be president of the United States have themselves turned into a cult that mirrors those who they so often criticize: the "birthers." This is evident by reading through the comments at Steven Taylor's post, "Birtherism Lives." What interested me was Steven's appearance of absolute certainty of President Obama's eligibility for office, which even from my perspective hasn't been shown conclusively. At issue is the new poll from CNN showing that 6 in 10 have doubts about Obama's birth: "CNN Poll: Only 42% Of Americans Believe Obama is a Citizen, Only 23% Of Republicans." The survey was released on Obama's birthday. In response, MSNBC's Chris Matthews nearly had a heart attack, "Chris Matthews: Birthers Are Trying To “Assassinate” Obama “With Their Lies”."

It's all pretty funny to me. Since the left's attacks on the birth eligibility issue is pretty much like being attacked as RAAAAACIST! --- that is, it's simply a means of shutting down debate and dissent. The MSM plays it up, and all of a sudden you're lumped in with the 9/11 truthers if you question why no one's ever released the long form birth certificate, which was issued in August 1961 by the State of Hawaii. (The computer generated COLB is incomplete documentation, and includes no signatures from medical professionals witnessing the birth.)

In any case, for some related humor, see Jerome Corsi, "Oops! Obama Mama Passport 'Destroyed'":

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department has released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama's mother – but records for the years surrounding Obama's 1961 birth are missing.

The State Department claims a 1980s General Services Administration directive resulted in the destruction of many passport applications and other "nonvital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for or held prior to 1965.

Destroyed, then, would also be any records shedding light on whether Dunham did or did not travel out of the country around the time of Barack Obama's birth.

The claim made in the Freedom of Information response letter that many passport records were destroyed during the 1980s comes despite a statement on the State Department website that Passport Services maintains U.S. passport records for passports issued from 1925 to the present.

The records released, however, contain interesting tidbits of new information about Obama's mother, including the odd listing of two different dates and locations for her marriage to Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.

Image Credit: The Astute Bloggers, "Naughty Obama Mamma."

BONUS: I have a long response to Steven Taylor at Outside the Beltway. He claims there's irrefutable proof of Obama's birth eligibility. I have raised questions there that so far he's not answered.

Democrats Calling the Kettle Black — Hey, That's RAAAAACIST!!

JENNY BETH MARTIN and MARK MECKLER have some pushback against the bogus left-wing anti-tea party RAAAAACIST smears (via Memeorandum).

And as I've chronicled many times over the years, nobody beats the Dems for mainstream political party racism. Just ask Firedoglake race-baiters Blue Texan and TBogg!

(And it took me maybe all of 5 minutes to round up a few embarrassing clips of Democratic Party racism and stupidity. No doubt we could fill a book or two of examples, and genuine instances of conservative racism are so infrequent that leftists have to invent them.)

Progressives Are Communists (If You Didn't Know)

A really interesting piece at Gallup, "Americans Unsure About 'Progressive' Political Label."

It turns out that a majority of 54 percent aren't quite sure what a "political progressive" really is. And a very small percentage, 12 percent, actually self-identifies as "progressive" (with 45 percent of those identifying as "liberal" or "very liberal"). The numbers make sense to me. Traditionally, ideological discussion of the left/right continuum focuses on liberals and conservatives. But liberalism literally has become a dirty word in American politics, and for decades Democratic-leftists have been working feverishly (yet unsuccessfully) to get out from under it. Well now it turns out that self-identified socialist Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has called herself a "progressive," hence Gallup's inclusion of the measurement of progressive in its June 11-13 USA Today/Gallup poll.

What's frankly awesome about this is that Gallup recognizes that leftists use "progressive" to avoid being "pigeonholed" as outside of the mainstream. And even funnier is how Thomas Rhiel at Talking Points Memo also acknowledges the truth about leftist identification as "progressive":

For years, pundits and politicians on the left have been calling themselves "progressives" to avoid the apparent stigma of the word "liberal." But a USA Today/Gallup poll released today indicates that a majority of Americans still aren't sure what "progressive" really means.

Long-time readers of American Power will recall that I never use the word "liberal" to refer to Democratic-leftists. I've always thought "liberal" was an unacceptable bastardization of the more traditional "classical liberal," from which we draw our political heritage (in the Declaration of Independence, for example). And since around the time of the Iraq War in March 2003 --- as one who had voted Democratic my entire life --- it finally dawned on me that today's Democratic-leftists are not only not "liberal" but they're literally allied with all the anti-democratic ideologies and movements in world politics today. Of course, as I've noted here recently in my commentaries on The World Turned Upside Down, leftists adopt a righteous infallibility that disdains anti-statist ideologies as backwoods. Of course, the most irrationalist and totalitarian programs are entirely associated with the left (which of course includes its alliance with global jihad). What's unfortunate is that if the respondents at Gallup really knew what was going on they'd be distancing themselves from the "progressive" label faster than you can say "RAAAAACIST"!!

In any case, progressives today are not social and economic reformers, or those who're directed toward modernization and social improvement. They're totalitarian ideologues working for the idealized utopia that always historically ends in the terror and the gulag.

Here's a bit from David Horowitz on the bankruptcy of communism (what progressivism is really all about):

In what sense can a bankrupt idea be called “progressive”? For two centuries the socialist idea -- the future promise that justifies the present sacrifice -- has functioned as a blank check for the violence and injustice associated with efforts to achieve it. The “experiments” may have failed – so go the apologies for the Left -- but the intentions that launched them were idealistic and noble. But it is no longer really possible to hold up the socialist fantasy to justify the destructive assaults on existing societies which, whatever their faults, were less oppressive than the revolutionary “solutions” that followed their demise. The failed “experiments” of the Left and its divisive crusades must be seen now for what they are: bloody exercises in civil nihilism; violent pursuits of empty hopes; revolutionary actes gratuites that were doomed to fail from the start.

Historical perspective imposes on us a new standard of judgment. Because they were doomed from their origin and destructive by design, these revolutionary gestures now stand condemned by morality and justice in their conception and not merely in their result. If there was a “party of humanity” in the civil wars that the Left’s ambitions provoked in the past, it was on the other side of the political barricades. In these battles, the enlightened parties were those who defended democratic process and civil order against the greater barbarism that, as we now know for certain, the radical future entailed.

UPDATE: Linked at Doug Ross, Linkiest, and The Rhetorican.

Surprise! Republicans 'Racist' for No Vote on Unemployment Extension

I almost spoke too soon. Just after mentioning that I hadn't found too many anti-American blogs dissing 4th of July, here we have Zandar the Stupid smearing traditional Americans as racist for opposing the left's move to create an unemployment benefit entitlement. Paul Krugman slams folks like this as "heartless" and "clueless." But Sir Stupid takes it to the natural conclusion:

It's the same folks who say America is a the greatest country on Earth, that its people are exceptional and destined, who talk about how special we are as a people, invariably they are the first to turn on their neighbors and say "I don't care if there's not any jobs out there, go paint fences and collect aluminum cans. I'm not helping you. Get a job you lazy bastard."

The deficit numbers are just an excuse to heap more misery upon the unemployed. That's because a lot of people in Krugman's first two categories believe everyone who is unemployed still must be lazy, or trying to scam the system, or trying to fleece them personally. It's a depressingly cynical worldview, and in reality that's just covering up for fears of something far more nasty: that everyone who's still unemployed by this point is shall we say of a certain ethnic background.

Extending unemployment insurance is unsound economic policy. It reduces incentives for workers to find employment or shift to new industrial sectors. Even Krugman recognizes this, but says Republicans are mean anyway. Zandar the Stupid just uses this as one more chance to scream RAAAAACIST!!!

Added: William Jacobson links, "Is Paul Krugman Heartless, Clueless or Confused (Pick Only One)?"

Assimilation and the Founding Fathers

At Michelle's (via):

In his immigration speech on Thursday, President Obama heralded America as a “nation of immigrants” defined not by blood or birth, but by “fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.” If only it were so. Left-wing academics and activists spurned assimilation as a common goal long ago. Their fidelity lies with bilingualism (a euphemism for native language maintenance over English-first instruction), identity politics, ethnic militancy and a borderless continent.

Obama blames “politics” for the intractable immigration debate. Whose politics? The amnesty mob has taken to ambushing congressional offices this week to scream at lawmakers to choose “reform” (giving a blanket path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens) or “racism” (their description of any and every legislative measure to stiffen sanctions for and deter the acts of border-jumping, visa-overstaying and deportation-evading).

Is there no middle ground for all sides to agree that clearing naturalization application backlogs should take priority over expanding illegal alien benefits, or that tracking and deporting violent illegal alien criminals should take precedence over handing out driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, or that streamlining the employee citizenship verification process for businesses (E-verify) and fixing outdated visa tracking databases should come before indiscriminately expanding temporary visa and guest worker programs?

Must every response to even the most modest of immigration enforcement measures be “RAAAAACIST”? ...

RTWT.

PREVIOUSLY: "Immigrants and Socialists March Against SB 1070 in Phoenix." A vendor sells shirts decrying Arizona's SB 1070's as "racist."

Coconut Rubio?

I saw this first at Michelle's, "The Old “Coconut” Smear: Another White Liberal Bigmouth With Race Issues."

A few readers asked me why I hadn’t commented on MSNBC’s latest attack on the Tea Party as RAAAAACIST. Been there, done that. Over and over and over again. (The Dallas Tea Party posted an excellent rejoinder video here.)

The whole right-wingers-are-racist and minority-conservatives-are-race-traitors-wrapped-in-color thing is getting really, really old. Staler than last year’s Halloween candy, Diane Keaton’s wardrobe, and the Smothers Brothers’ show. It’s gotten so old that yet another white liberal bigmouth has now resurrected a smear I first heard in college: “Coconut.”

Michelle's got lots more stuff at the link (especially The Root's unbelievable, "Black Folks We'd Like to Remove From Black History."

Also at Terry Ann Online, "Coconut."

Think Progress Goes After Michael Steele - And Dana Loesch!

Interesting!

I linked to Dana Loesch's webcast on Michael Steele's radio cancellation. Be sure to listen Dana's "Fake Interview with RNC Chair Michael Steele." Dana's the coolest!

So, calling the RNC Chair a "butt-sniffer" gets you some props from Soros-backed communists, or something? At Think Progress, "Right-Wing Radio Host Incensed That ‘Butt Sniffer’ Michael Steele Canceled Appearance On Her Show." I guess this is one of those "eat your own" things, as indicated by the comments. But Think Progress hopes to take down everyone on the right, from the "evil" tea-parties to the Re-"thug"-licans.

Note that if Steele was a Democrat, Dana would be getting smeared as a "raaaaacist"!!

(Via Memeorandum.)