This is too true.

From PJTV (Pajamas Media) and AlfonZo Rachel:

Way to go, AlfonZo!

When you give liberals an inch, they will not be satisfied to take a mere mile and, like terrorists, they will continue pushing the envelope to see how far they can get. Such is the case with political correctness, and the way the left keeps pushing more and more of it on the rest of us as a way of knocking down our defenses against their various agendas, none of which are in the least bit friendly to America and the American way of life.

Here we have yet another example of this phenomenon in action;

In yet another case of Orwellian political correctness run amok, a video posted at MoveOn.org says calling illegal immigrants “illegal” fits the definition of a hate crime and calls for the word to be banned when used in the context of immigration.

The headline at the MoveOn page screams “One word we hear too often on Fox News,” as if only Fox News calls illegal immigrants “illegal.”

As usual, they alter the context to make “illegal” aliens out to mean that the peoples, their existences, are illegal rather than their undocumented presences in the United States, semantics intended to villify enforcement of federal law.

It irks me to no end that this practice is allowed to continue, but I suppose that this is the essence of a country like ours, one endowed with freedom for all, including those that would destroy us from within, taking away those same liberties that allowed them to do so.

Having said that, here is the article quoted above, complete with video.

From CSN News:

A Florida advocacy group spearheading protests over the racially-charged Trayvon Martin shooting has welcomed the intervention of the United Nations’ human rights chief, who has called for the shooter to be put on trial and “reparations for the victims concerned.”

“We believe that the United Nations involvement can help prevent another Trayvon Martin situation in other counties across the world,” J. Willie David, president of the Florida Civil Rights Association, said in a statement provided to CNSNews.com on Monday.

“The shooting death of Trayvon Martin and Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law have created a worldwide movement that calls into question how justice is delivered to victims of color,” he said.

Cent 1: How is this the U.N.’s business? Between trying to get involved in monitoring our last election, attempting to enact a special U.N. payroll tax on all working Americans and let’s not forget their endeavors at becoming involved in efforts to take away our Second Amendment rights, the people in this corrupt, inept global organization most definitely became much too big for their britches some time ago and are very much in need of a slapping down.

If only we had a few politicians, naturally they’d have to be Republicans or perhaps Independents since Democrats are all for U.N. interference in our national business on every level, who had the cojones to smack the United Nations into its place…

Cent 2: It’s amazing how when a young black man beats down a non-black senior citizen and robs him/her and the victim is paralyzed or dies, it’s not a “racial incident” and in fact seems almost to be a non-incident, but when the same young black man, even one with a criminal record (narcotics, assault, robbery, gang-banging, CCW, whatever) is shot down in the process of assaulting or robbing someone, it’s automatically a racial incident and the same professional race activists are suddenly in the spotlight shouting “racism!!!!” and demanding justice.

I don’t know about you, but I believe that when a mugger or violent victimizing type gets shot, no matter what color he is, justice has already been done!

So what’s everybody getting so worked up about?

Remember?

I just read an interesting column by John Stossel, where he weighs in on the issue.

“Backwards and hateful ideas … oust John Stossel,” said Colorofchange.org.

In a newspaper, the organization went on:

“It’s time that FOX drop Stossel … we’ll go directly after the network with a public campaign unlike anything we’ve pursued to date.”.

Media Matters joined: “By airing Stossel’s repugnant comments, Fox legitimizes his indefensible position.”

What “indefensible” position did I take?

I said this: “Private businesses ought to get to discriminate. I won’t ever go to a place that’s racist, and I will tell everybody else not to, and I’ll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.”

Read that carefully: I condemned racism. I said I’d speak out against and boycott a racist’s business. But to some people, I committed heresy. I failed to accept the entire catechism. I didn’t say that we need government to fight racism and prohibit racist policies in private establishments.

That’s always the way of the Racecard Left, ain’t it? You’re in for a penny, in for a pound. Their way or the highway and anyone who’s for the latter is a racist.

Here’s the entire column.

…the very fact that the likes of a Barack Obama being even remotely considered for, let alone being an official candidate for, the office of the President of the United States of America is a sign that our country is in dire straits where any semblances of sanity, common sense or so much as the most fleeting perception of reality figure into the scheme of things.

It has nothing whatever to do with his skin color, his age or even his experience, or lack thereof, in politics and everything to do with the things he says, his complete lack of honesty, those things he purports to represent and the various details of his background and the mentors and influences within.

Liberals can say what they want in response to speculation that a major reason Obama came out over Hillary Clinton during the primary season was his skin color, but face it, that speculation is spot-on. The left will call you a racist for uttering such a sentiment, your actual beliefs notwithstanding, but even given a variety of other reasons, including the more-than-accurate observation that most Americans are quite weary of the Clintons, the fact remains that it’s the truth.

I’ve heard many blacks, for example, say that they are planning to vote for B. Hussein Obama for the sole reason that he is a black man, and to their way of thinking it’s about time we had a black President. White liberals say they’ll vote for him because a vote for John McCain would be a vote for another Bush Administration, but that’s not the only reason…

The liberal mainstream media, along with their portside following, take whatever opportunities they can get away with to infer that the only reason any caucasion would not vote for Obama is racism.

Of course.

In the 12 August 2008 Best Of The Web Today James Taranto links to a New York Magazine Article by Patricia J. Williams that implies just that in its own liberal-reasoned way.

Patricia Williams, a law professor at Columbia, has proved that skeptics of Barack Obama are racist. The evidence is close to home–right there in her imagination. In New York magazine, she explains:

On a short flight to New York recently, I was sitting behind two white, well-dressed twentysomethings chattering loudly and uninhibitedly about going to clubs and travel plans and the possibility of living in New Jersey. Then came the question: “So who are you voting for?”

“I was for Hillary, but now . . . I’m kind of undecided,” volunteered the first woman.

“Are you a Democrat?” asked the second.

“Yeah. But I think I might go with McCain. It’s just that, well, I don’t know. You know.” Her voice dropped. I leaned forward to hear better. “You kind of hate to say it aloud, but . . .” Here her voice dropped again, to a murmur lost in the roar of the jet engines, and I missed whatever came next.

Let’s start with this concession: I have no idea what that young woman actually said. In a perfect world, I suppose that would be the end of the story and I would go back to minding my own business. In the context of contemporary political discourse, however, it did cross my mind that if this conversation were presented on one of those “finish the sentence” cultural-literacy tests, then pretty much every American, of whatever creed, color, or class, would have exactly the same guess as to how the woman completed her thought.

I think there’s some consensus, in other words, about the one thing in America we really “hate to say” aloud. Yet by refraining from saying audibly that-which-must-not-be-spoken, was the young woman’s political choice rendered rational, neutral, pure?

Conversely, if I were to spell it out here, would I be the one accused of “playing the race card”?

That’s it! These ladies are racist because (1) eavesdropper Williams fills in the blank in their conversation with something invidious, and (2) she imagines that everyone else fills in the blank the same way. Just imagine if President Bush had used similar methodology to determine that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. People would be calling for his impeachment!

When a liberal or a black acquaintance hints that I may be a bigot because I don’t endorse Obama, I invariably point out that should J.C. Watts run for President, I would vote for him without reservation.

This never fails to be ignored, including by those who know fully well whom J.C. Watts is, because the liberal rule of thumb is that if a black man is not a Democrat, he is not only not a true black man, he is also a traitor to all black people everywhere.

Go figure.

That said, though John McCain (you know, the guy to whom the MSM gives only a fraction of the campaign coverage they give Obama, even while B. Hussein is on vacation) is only my choice for POTUS because he is the lesser of two evils, the Arizona senator is, exponentially, a more realistic and certainly more desirable Presidential candidate than Obama, pale skin and all.

…New York’s Own Race Card Institution, is…

The Bell shooting and the not-guilty verdict rendered in favor of the police officers involved.

The result of the not guilty verdict, another way of saying that New York police officers will not be crucified for doing what they deemed necessary, at a given moment, to defend themselves, is a rerun of Sharpton and fellow race maggots’ response to the Amadou Diallo shooting. Any excuse to go after “the Man”.

So there are idiots blocking traffic up in Harlem and announcements by Sharpton that he will organize civil disruption of the entire city (same as his attempts after the Diallo case), a despicable business, including lots of people sporting signs that said, “Adolph Giuliani”, and the “reverend” who makes his living off perpetuating anti-white bigotry has even said that he intends to probe the presiding judge’s (in the Bell case) background in search of skeletons.

These folks ignore one simple fact: Big city cops are confronted with the reality that today’s drugged-up gang-bangers have a nasty tendency to open up on a police officer, at the drop of a hat, with more than just a handgun — full auto weapons are a dime a dozen on today’s streets, including machine pistols small enough to conceal with little difficulty under a coat or even a light jacket.

A cop is neither paid to, nor expected to, gamble with his life. If he has cause to believe his life is in jeopardy, he is authorized to respond as he deems necessary to stay alive.

A lesson should have been learned as far back as the Amadou Diallo shooting.

When you hear, “Police! Freeze!” — You freeze. You don’t reach for a wallet or a cell phone, you don’t start dancing, you don’t ask questions, you don’t begin to comb your hair…. You stop dead in your tracks, don’t move another muscle, and you await further instructions, such as “Clasp your hands together on top of your head.” Or whatever.

Make a sudden move and get shot, that’s your problem and your fault, not the cop’s. It’s not his job to wait until you’ve gotten a shot off at him before he defends himself, when your shot might have already killed him. It also doesn’t matter whether he fires one shot or twenty shots. The overkill angle is nothing but pure political enhancement.

While my condolences go out to the dead man’s fiancee and family, who definitely have their right to grieve, they cheapen their loss by allowing it to become a pawn in the race card agenda of Sharpton and his miserable parasite ilk, and by participating as such, they spit on their own lost loved one.

It’s over, let it stay that way.