Tag Archives: racism

LOTFI: Regarding Racism, Media Bias Against GOP is Glaring

NASHVILLE, November 7, 2015– Earlier this summer, the nation was saturated with narratives against anyone that identified with southern heritage after 21-year-old Dylann Roof entered a South Carolina African-American church and ruthlessly murdered 9 souls. Afterwards, hundreds of thousands demanded Confederate flags and all other Confederacy associated iconography be removed from public view across the country. The fight took center stage here in Nashville when thousands demanded the removal of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s bust from the capitol. At least two Tennessee legislators, Rep. Bryan Terry (R-Murfreesboro), the only Native American in the legislature, and Rep. Andy Holt (R-Dresden) called for an end to the divisiveness. In return, ridicule ensued from media across the nation. Meanwhile, Democratic Party Chairwoman Mary Mancini recently published an op-ed that praised a man responsible for the death countless Native Americans, and the media was all but silent.

At the peak of the Forrest controversy, Holt ran an op-ed that called for unity. While Holt acknowledged Forrest’s checkered past and involvement in the Confederacy and KKK, he also re-told a story of Forrest that the media all but refused to report. Forrest was a man redeemed. Holt wrote that Forrest ended up being one of the South’s first civil rights activists who called for the KKK to disband. In addition, it’s widely known fact that Forrest’s funeral was attended more than 3,000 African-Americans in Memphis who wanted to pay their respects for all that Forrest had fought for on their behalf late in his life. Of course, Forrest had committed atrocities. However, Holt wrote Forrest’s heart had changed and we should recognize, celebrate and model such change, not seek to erase it from history.It wasn’t as if Holt had made this narrative up. Historian Gregory Tucker validated Holt’s narrative in his own column published by the Daily News Journal. Regardless, Tennessee and national media lined up in a hurry to ruthlessly attack Holt. Headlines asked “What next, Andy? Ted Bundy was a women’s rights activist?” The Tennessee Democratic Party, which is led by Mancini, even went on to attack Holt on their Facebook page.

A different story:

In preparation for their annual Jackson Dinner, Mancini wrote in an op-ed recently published by the Tennessean that she and the Democratic Party will be forever grateful to party founder, Tennessean, and former President Andrew Jackson for infusing the Democratic Party with the spirit of equality and an understanding that the White House was the people’s house.

“We will be forever grateful to General Jackson for infusing the Democratic Party with that spirit — we were the “party of the people” then and we are the “party of the people” now — and we will continue to honor that legacy,” wrote Mancini.We’re talking about the same Jackson that ruthlessly murdered tens of thousands of Native American Indians. The same Jackson responsible for the Trail of Tears.

According to Mancini, Jackson “captured the imagination of the American people.”

One forgets that Jackson didn’t think Native Americans were people, so he committed genocide against them and made them his slaves.

National media was silent. Not a word. Not a single Tennessee journalist, pundit, professor or talking head questioned Mancini’s praise of a man referred to as “America’s Hitler” by Native Americans. Not one.

The Tennessean did, however, publish an op-ed from a Native American historian that called for an end to the celebration of Andrew Jackson while damning Jackson as a monster, but not before praising Mancini as a “voice of liberalism and reason in the community” which leads the reader to believe that this Historian is a liberal himself. That’s all the scrutiny the chairwoman received for praising and celebrating a man that murdered tens of thousands, enslaved thousands more and quite literally attempted to commit genocide. Seriously?

So, media infers that Republican Holt is a dumb racist who would support abusing women because he called for unity and understanding, and sought to clarify some historical points. Meanwhile, Democrat Mancini is a voice of reason.

A message for media:

If you want to understand why America has lost trust in the media, then look in the mirror. America deserves better. To those editors willing to recognize the state of media and reflect, I applaud you. Hope may yet remain for the Press’ freedom and integrity.

FOLLOW MICHAEL LOTFI ON Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn.

Poll: Majority Of Americans Say Confederate Flag Represents Southern Pride, Not Racism

After the Confederate flag was seen being held by Dylann Roof, the suspect in a shooting massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, in pictures that surfaced on the Internet accompanied with a “racist manifesto,” the debate began over what the flag actually represented.

While Several major retailers responded by pulling all Confederate flag merchandise from their shelves, deeming it “offensive” and a “symbol of racism and slavery” and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called for the flag to be removed from the state’s capitol grounds, a recent survey claims that the majority of Americans don’t see the flag as a racist symbol.

According to a CNN/ORC Poll, 57 percent of Americans see the Confederate flag as more of a symbol of Southern pride and heritage than as a symbol of racism. 33 percent see it as a symbol of racism, and five percent say it is “both equally” while five percent say it is “neither.”

There was a notable divide between races, with only 17 percent of blacks and 66 percent of whites viewing the flag as a symbol of Southern pride, while 72 percent of blacks and 25 percent of whites view it was a symbol of racism.

While 87 percent of the individuals polled said that the Charleston shooting should be considered a hate crime, only 41 percent said it should be considered an act of terrorism.

The poll also found that there was a divide based on education, and that among the whites polled who said they had a college degree, 51 percent said the Confederate flag was a symbol of Southern pride and 41 percent said it was a symbol of racism, while among whites who said they did not have a college degree, 73 percent said the flag was a symbol of pride and 18 percent said it was a symbol of racism.

Although 57 percent of the Americans polled opposed redesigning the Confederate flag, 71 percent opposed removing tributes to those who fought in the Confederacy and 68 percent opposed renaming the streets and highways that are named after Confederate leaders, 55 percent supported removing Confederate flags from government property that is not part of a museum.

Related: Companies Ban Confederate Flag Sales, But Keep Nazi And Che Guevara Merchandise

According to the poll, 50 percent of Americans supported private companies choosing not to sell or manufacture items featuring the Confederate flag, while 47 percent opposed it. Looking at the demographics, 65 percent of blacks were in support of private companies halting the sale of Confederate flag merchandise, and 49 percent of whites were in support.

The poll was conducted through telephone interviews by ORC International on June 26-28, a little over a week after the Charleston shooting occurred on June 17. A total of 1,017 adult Americans were interviewed, and there was a margin of sampling error plus or minus three percentage points. 611 of the interviews were conducted with landline respondents and 406 of the interviews were conducted with cell phone respondents.

Take the Truth In Media Poll below:

SC Libertarian Steve French Speaks On Confederate Flag Removal

The debate over taking the Confederate Flag down at the State capitol is a red hot issue in South Carolina. Truth In Media reached out to libertarian candidate Steve French for his thoughts and the political ramifications of the issue heading into the 2016 presidential election.

French told Truth In Media that he believes that the Confederate flag should come down but the act should be taken a step further. “I think the Down with Tillman movement needs to go hand-in-hand with this Confederate Flag movement,” French said.

According to the Charleston City Paper, Ben Tillman “was a racist, terrorist, and murderer.”

In 2009, Rep. Todd Rutherford (D-Richland) filed a bill to remove the Tillman statue of the controversial S.C. politician. The bill died in a Republican-controlled subcommittee.

“It’s not about bringing the Confederate Flag down, it’s about moving past this history that we’ve had in this Country and this State. And I say it’s time to move forward, it’s time to put these old things to bed. It’s not just about the flag, its about the whole system,” said French.

Last year in a gubernatorial debate, Gov. Nikki Haley defended the Confederate flag while French called for it to come down.

“Paint your house in the Confederate flag. I could care less. But as far as it being on State grounds for somebody my age, I see nothing that that does except divide us as a generation and a State. All it brings is divisiveness,” said French.

Listen to the full exclusive interview here.

 “I think the #DownWithTillman movement needs to go hand-in-hand with this Confederate Flag movement.”

Face of Southern Politics Changing Despite What the Race-Baiters Think

Face it. Tomorrow, South Carolina will elect Tim Scott, the first Republican African American senator from the south since the Reconstruction.

Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu recently said, “I’ll be very, very honest with you. The south has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader.”

Rep. James Clyburn agreed with Landrieu in a recent interview with MSNBC.

But Rep. James Clyburn and Sen. Landrieu will never cite the progress the south is making regarding race.

For them, Scott’s election isn’t something to be lauded. It should be questioned and slammed because, unlike Pres. Obama, Scott is a black conservative.

“If you call progress electing a person with the pigmentation that he has, who votes against the interest and aspirations of 95% of the black people in South Carolina, then I guess that’s progress,” said Rep. Clyburn.

So according to Clyburn, since Scott is the color he is, he should align with certain preconceptions, like blacks always vote Democrat and for big government.

North Carolina’s NAACP President Rev. William Barber even resorted to name calling.

“A ventriloquist can always find a good dummy,” Barber said of Scott.

The south, and the face of conservatives, is changing, and people like Clyburn, Barber and Landrieu can’t, or won’t, accept that. They both choose to dwell in the past and marginize Scott’s pending victory.

Clyburn continues to hold the South back with his narrow-minded statements. Yes, there is still racism in the South, but the new south is becoming more tolerant. Both white, black and latinos will vote for Tim Scott because they like his message of economic freedom and traditional values.

The mainstream media, however, won’t report on the south’s progress because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

Appearing on MSNBC, Clyburn said that Southerners will never accept President Barack Obama because of his skin color.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Tamron Hall, Clyburn said no matter what President Barack Obama does, “a lot of people” won’t accept him “because of his skin color.”

“For anybody to say there’s nothing that is racial about some of the animus being expressed by President Obama, you’re not telling the truth,” said Clyburn. “We know with a lot of people, I don’t care what he does. He’s not going to be acceptable because of his skin color.”

Granted there are probably some who don’t like Obama due to his skin color, but tomorrow, the people voting for Scott, regardless of their skin color, are doing so because they agree with him ideologically.

VIDEO: Woman defends elderly man from police who she defines as being racist

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 8, 2014– Last week, two Washington Metro Police officers confronted an elderly African-American man in the streets of an affluent D.C. suburb who was carrying two bags. The police ordered the man to the ground and claimed he had become “loud and boisterous” when confronted.

The police were responding to a home alarm in the area, though it turns out they were blocks away from the address where they should have been. Jody Westby , a white, female attorney living in the neighborhood, observed the altercation and rushed to the man’s defense.

Westby instructed her housekeeper to record the events before questioning the cops. Westby stated, “Just because he’s black doesn’t mean he’s here to rob a house. He works for us. He’s been in this neighborhood for 30 years.”

Wesby then pulled the man up off the street and told the police to “please leave our neighborhood” after threatening to report the incident. Westby’s audacity was met with little to no rebuff by the officers, leading many to point out the white privilege showcased in the incident.

Had Wesby not been a white resident of an affluent neighborhood with a thorough understanding of the law, would she have been treated with the same respect and deference by the police? Many think not.

Westby, for one, was stunned by the complete lack of respect shown to an African-American citizen by two other officers of the same race. Westby stated, “You got a white woman and a Hispanic woman standing up for a black man against two black cops…It was shameful how they behaved. And if it were Columbia Heights, or some other neighborhood, it’d probably just be worse.”

Westby is the CEO of Global Cyber Risk LLC and was working from her home office when she saw the incident. Westby went on to state, “It was very interesting, in the sense of getting a picture of how black cops treat black people…And how humiliating that was for [Stucky]. And how they were treating him just like a dog.”

You can watch the full confrontation here:

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook & Twitter.

Obama’s Explanation For Low Approval Rating: Some Folks Don’t Like Me Because I’m Black


President Obama currently has an incredibly low approval rating. According to a new Gallup poll, 53 percent of Americans currently do not approve of him.

But according to the president, that is not due to the disastrous Obamacare rollout, bleak job market, or constant violation of Americans’ privacy from their own government. No — rather, it is because he is black.

When asked about his low poll numbers, Obama told the New Yorker, “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President.”

He continued, “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.”

The lengthy New Yorker article pointed out that “the popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country.”

Of course, it is true that there are some individuals who do not like Obama simply because he is black (and, as the president mentioned, others who like him simply because he is black). But it is unlikely that Obama’s recent plummet in the polls has anything to do with his skin color, a factor that has remained static since he became America’s first African American president in 2008. At that time, his approval ratings were very high.

Many believe that his current low poll numbers can be attributed to the sluggish economy, out-of-control government spending, Obamacare disaster, and NSA spying.

What do you think?

Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

Government Sponsored Racism

*views of guest contributors are their own*

Should a white person be given preference to college admissions because he is white? Of course not. That’s racist. So why are admission preferences given to any specific race?

In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that race could play a role in admissions policies of universities that receive federal money (even if only in the form of aid to students). This “positive discrimination”, known as affirmative action, attempts to compensate for historical racial discrimination by affirmative-action-protestgiving minority applicants a “leg up”. But these policies are currently being challenged by a case before the Supreme Court, Fisher v. University of Texas.  This new case asks that the Court overrule Grutter, which would end government-imposed affirmative action at American universities.

Affirmative action is a form of racism. These policies, intended to benefit minority students in the United States, only feed into the same racist machine that they are supposed to counteract. Well-intentioned affirmative action measures are inherently racist by giving benefits based on skin color, not merit. Such policies are divisive rather than uniting, and lead to perpetual victimhood. Affirmative action was needed in the ‘60s and ‘70s, but now these policies unnecessarily treat today’s minorities as victims.

If a college wishes to promote diversity on its campus through affirmative action policies, fine. Private organizations and companies (including colleges) should have the freedom to adopt whatever admissions policies they want. Racial, sexual orientation, and religious diversity only enriches the educational experience on campus. But government-forced “positive discrimination” is racist and counterproductive.

Affirmative action often hurts its beneficiaries more than it helps, by placing minority students in programs above their abilities. Scholars euphemistically coined the term “mismatch” to refer to this outcome. Mismatch suggests that students who get into a top school with the help of affirmative action would be better served attending a less competitive school, where they could gain admission through their own merit and achievements. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who admits to benefitting from affirmative action himself, saw firsthand how racially-based admittance policies negatively impacted black students. He said, “I watched the operation of such affirmative action policies when I was in college, and I watched the destruction of many kids as a result.”

According to Thomas J. Espenshade, a Princeton University sociology professor, a black student with a virtually identical application to a white student receives the equivalent of a 310-point bump in SAT scores. This generous advantage potentially hurts the black student by placing him in a program where he is more likely to struggle or fail out. It is therefore no surprise that significantly fewer minorities end up graduating than whites. This stands true at private colleges, but the problem is especially pronounced at public universities.  At the University of Wisconsin, for example, 81 percent of white students graduated compared to only 56 percent of blacks.

Placing minorities into programs they are not qualified for may be a contributing factor to their high unemployment rate. The black jobless rate, for example, is about twice that of whites. A student who struggles in an academic program that he is not qualified for is less likely to succeed in the job market. For instance, an unprepared student who is placed in a rigorous engineering program may retain less of the essential knowledge to be successful in that field.

Does the mismatch theory suggest that minority students should be prevented from attending elite universities? Absolutely not. Rather, it asserts that students of any race (minority or not) do not necessarily benefit from attending a top school if they are not academically on par with their peers.

There is also unspoken resentment among some in the white community who may assume that minority students were accepted because of affirmative action policies, not merit. Eliminating these policies would dispel such racist assumptions.

There are undoubtedly countless bright, promising minority students across the country who would be assets to elite universities. To argue that minority students need a “leg up” to gain admission is offensive, and suggests that these young people cannot succeed on their own. Fisher v. University of Texas may result in the elimination of government-imposed affirmative action in universities altogether. This would be a significant step towards a truly equal society, where individuals are judged on merit, not race. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”