FOX: Barbara Boxer: "Negro, toe the line"
During Bill O’Reilly ’s interview last night of Harry Alford, President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), Alford made some insightful comments regarding Senator Barbara Boxer that served to expose the Left’s condescending attitude toward minorities.  While professing to advocate on behalf of racial equality and tolerance for all minorities, in practice the true leftist agenda is much less inclusive.
O’Reilly introduced the segment by playing video footage of Alford’s spat with Boxer (who has consistently voted against legislation designed to expand U.S. oil- and gas-exploration) during his testimony before the Senate Environment & Public Works Hearing last week.  The NBCC opposes the Waxman/Markey “Cap & Trade” bill, and after Alford had stated his organization’s reasons for this — including the results of an NBCC-commissioned study projecting that more than 2 million jobs would be lost as a result of the legislation – Senator Boxer attempted to counter his argument by citing an irrelevant statement by “100 Black Men of Atlanta” and the reflexively leftist, pro-Big Government NAACP.  Alford strenuously objected, calling Boxer out for being condescending and racial.
As Mr. Alford told O’Reilly:
“It was pure race — it was like down there in Mississippi back in the bad old days when one black preacher would rise up against the big boss, he’d go find another black preacher to fight against that black preacher. Â You know — it was ugly. Â And she opened up a pit, a mud pit that I wasn’t gonna jump into.”
While O’Reilly said he respected Alford’s willingness to confront and “take down” Boxer, he also opined that he didn’t think the Senator had intended to inject race into the debate.  Here I think O’Reilly is naive and far too willing to give leftists an undeserved benefit of the doubt. Mr. Alford agrees:
“Actually, Bill, I think it’s her persona.  I don’t think she can help herself.  When she gets caught up in a rut like that or up against a wall, race comes out.  The brainchild of Anita Hill attacking Clarence Thomas was Barbara Boxer.  You go back to the election of 2004 and all of that garbage against Ken Blackwell, Secretary of State of Ohio, saying he rigged the election — that was Barbara Boxer.  She loves poor black folks and she loves black folks in their place.  She does not love … you take Condoleeza Rice who I would love my grandchildren to emulate, and the way she treated Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearings was just terrible.”
Bull’s-eye.  This is what members of the left constantly do: pose as champions of minority rights while secretly holding those same minorities in contempt and aiming to exploit them in the service of their own (the leftists’) political power.  As long as minorities or their advocacy organizations take politically-correct (read: leftist) positions, leftist operatives offer their unmitigated approval and reverent support.  Let these same minority groups express a position contrary to the leftist agenda, however, and suddenly they are cast out of the communion of Saints.
This scenario is all-too-familiar to me as a conservative/libertarian gay man who has been politically active since my college days in the mid-1980s. Virtually without exception I have been shunned by members of organizations posing as gay civil rights groups which are in reality nothing more than fully-owned subsidiaries of the Democrat Party.  As soon as it becomes known within a group of these individuals that I hold generally conservative views — a fact I’ve never attempted to conceal — their disdain for me is palpable.  I’ve long since lost count of the number of times I’ve been accused of being a “self-loathing” gay person simply for not toeing the politically-correct line.  It’s something I’ve come to expect and even to welcome as an opportunity to articulate the reasons for my positions, but the intellectual vacuity of the left never ceases to amaze me.  Listening to their slavish recitation of leftist groupthink, it’s hard not to recall the pod-people from “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”
Harry Alford is hardly the first conservative black man the left has attempted to discredit, and he certainly won’t be the last.  It’s always entertaining, however, to watch leftist politicians (like Barbara Boxer) have their own squalid agendas exposed and thrown back in their faces when they least expect it.  If only more prominent Republicans would set aside their fear of media mockery and take a lesson from Harry Alford, they might be able to increase their numbers in Congress come the 2010 elections.
Liberals have set up the strawman that says any criticism of a minority is racist. Therefore Boxer had no choice but to trot out the words of some “black group” to counter Mr. Alford.
I’m sure that in her own mind this is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable means of debate. Afterall, she couldn’t possible disagree with him on the merits of the arguement like she would with a white person. He might not be able to handle it! Better to use someone else’s words as a surrogate, then she couldn’t possibly be guilty of racism.
I just wish he had thought to call her “Ma’am.”
She wants blacks to say “Yes, Massa” and do her ilk’s bidding. After all, she just wants to “hep ‘em”. Condescending is too charitable a description.
Kudos to Alford for two accomplishments:
1) studying up on Boxer, presumably ahead of his testimony, and anticipating her race-tinged response to his views;
2) having a ready response to O’Reilly’s inevitable naivete about Boxer’s racist intention. Alford effortlessly listed prior events that define her pattern. Bull’s eye!
That is absolutely brutal.
Too bad it won’t be seen on any other station than FOX.
After all, no black man stands up against a white, female Democrat. It’s unheard of.
Barbara Boxer and her ilk are so used to being pandered to by so-called minority groups in this country that they can’t help themselves. She just assumes that if you are a minority you will surely buy her BS hook, line and sinker. She probably didn’t have a clue why someone like Harry Alford would disagree with her much less be offended.
We the People should see more of this type of exchange. The need to see the Dems agenda is first and foremost. They speak of tolerance and then don’t have a clue how to practice it. I applaud Mr. Alford and his response to B Boxer’s unacceptable display of trying to make her point. She sounds like a bigot!!! I would love the opportunity to meet this gracious and intelligent gentleman.
Right on the money Mr. Alfred.
Wonder what his take is on the welfare system. Understand that welfare was created to help folks get through tough times or at least that’s what I have always thought. The libs are for helping the disadvantaged and welfare is one of their tools. At least this is what they want us to believe, but below the surface this is how they keep the poor, poor by giving them money for nothing thereby garnering their votes and continuing to keep them down creating several generations of welfare recipients and ultimately keeping the votes. just look at the welfare roles. It’s not diminishing, but it’s growing. It’s liberalism at it’s worst.
Ken
Oh, Good post.so gald to see your views about resveratrol.I’m also looking for resveratrol supplements. I found a lots of websites online.
and i have read some other idea about resveratrol-anti-aging: , are they true or not?
Anyway, I’ll try resveratrol soon.
Hm – if anybody is going to be called a racist it is of course preferable it should be a liberal – they invented the slur, after all.
But really this name-calling has become very tired, and we should all be much better off if it the tag was buried, unless the KKK rises to fresh popularity.
We all know what the score is, and we all know racism when we see it.
Apart from the fact that It seems to raise it's head in unexpected places nowadays, there doesn't seem much left to be said about it, is there?
Let's put it to rest. Let's debate like decent, civilized people who hate straw..