Tag Archives: race hustlers


I happened upon an article posted on alternet.com written by the very liberal Terrell Jermaine Starr. The name of the article was “Dear GOP: 10 Things You Should Never, Ever Say to Black People.” My first question was this, “Can Democrats then say these things to black people without fear of reprise.” If the answer is yes, then one of our basic freedoms has just been taken away from a substantial percentage of American citizens. Are we now going to have to wear some kind of symbol indicating our political persuasion so the “speech police” will know who to arrest? Needless to say, this article immediately went into my stupid liberal articles folder in my favorites.
Mr. Starr began his article with a fact that we all know, black voters have consistently cast their ballots for Democratic candidates at a rate of nearly 90% during each election cycle.
Back to the 10 things us Republicans should never say to Blacks. I’m going to list these things for you and refute everything that Mr. Starr says.

We’re not the party of government handouts; we believe in personal responsibility. Mr. Starr says that we’re suggesting that blacks are not hard workers. WRONG! We’re telling ALL LIKELY VOTERS that this country was founded based on its citizens being personably responsible for their lives. If you’re a capable hard worker, you’ll probably lead a prosperous life. All the Democrats can offer you are handouts because they’re the ones looking down their noses at you. They don’t think you’re capable and that you need handouts. We, the GOP, think that’s BS!
• We have black people in our party. Just look at Rep. Mia Love of Utah and U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. Mr. Starr doesn’t think that Ms. Love and Mr. Scott talk enough about racism and social injustice, so he demands that that the GOP not use them as examples. Is racism and social injustice all you think blacks should talk about? It looks like you’re still stuck in the 1960s. This is the second decade in the twenty-first century. Things have changed and changed a lot since the sixties, Mr. Starr. OPEN YOUR EYES! It looks like you want to return to the sixties, so you can have something to gripe about. Talk about racism?
• We’re the party of Lincoln; we freed the slaves. Mr. Starr says that black people don’t care about the historical legacy of Abraham Lincoln. He tells the GOP to talk to blacks about the economy the way we would talk to white folks about the economy. WE DO! In my observations, it’s Democrats who talk to black folks differently. Again, I’ve witnessed firsthand Democrats conversing with blacks trying to put “soul” into their diction. Also, remember Hillary Clinton at a church in Selma, Alabama.
• Any quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Mr. Starr wants to put a moratorium on quoting the more popular speeches of Dr. King, claiming that Dr. King is more than his “I Have a Dream” speech. Again, I would like to ask Mr. Starr if only Democrats are allowed to quote Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech? Mr. Starr goes on to indicate that Dr. King was not the docile, white-people-loving black man most people learned about in school. Mr. Starr, it sounds like you want to denigrate Dr. King. Do you not believe that we should judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? Of course you don’t, you’re a liberal!
• Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are race hustlers. Mr. Starr indicates that no one has anointed either one of them official status as go-to leaders for checking the pulse of black America. It’s quite obvious that our current president has unofficially designated Al Sharpton as his advisor on race. Race hustlers are exactly what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are. It’s their business to stir the pot and they do. Starr goes on to say, “How would you like it if someone said, “Hey, white man, you need to check your leader, Rush Limbaugh, about his anti-blackness.” First of all, Rush Limbaugh is not a “white leader.” Starr’s quote makes no sense at all. Again, maybe I’m missing something. Remember, I’m a southern white conservative Christian, an unenlightened oaf.
• It’s time to end affirmative action. Affirmative action is a racist program that speaks to blacks and other minorities telling them that they are not good enough to make it in the white man’s world. So, we’re going to help you out because we’re your friends. BS. And remember, affirmative action is not the same as equal opportunity. Mr. Starr dictates to us Republicans that if we want to discuss ending affirmative action, follow that up with a detailed description of how you will work to end racism across the board. And please don’t say black people can bootstrap themselves out of racism. Affirmative action is not going to end racism because affirmative action is racist itself. Mr. Starr goes on to say that black people cannot bootstrap themselves out of racism. Again, I’m an unenlightened oaf and I’m not sure what “bootstrap out of racism” means, but it sure sounds like Mr. Starr thinks of blacks as inferior. RACIST, RACIST, RACIST!
• Whitesplaining racism at black institutions. Mr. Starr indicates that he is talking about Senator Rand Paul in a speech he made to Howard University Students. I’m not familiar with the visit or the speech, but apparently Senator Paul pointed out to the students that the NAACP was founded by Republicans and that the first elected black U.S. Senator was a Republican. There’s nothing wrong with pointing things out to people even though they may already know these things. How many times do our ministers, bosses, teachers, coaches, etc. remind us of thing we already know. However, the Senator apparently mispronounced Senator Brook’s name. I’d say that’s punishable with twenty lashes. What do you think?
• What about black on black crime? Mr. Starr indicates that black on black crime cannot be discussed without addressing social and economic policies that create job growth or historical racism that suppressed economic mobility. I know liberals don’t want to discuss black on black crime. They would rather destroy property and injure innocent people over an isolated white on black shooting. What can I say? It’s going to have to be discussed, but as long as liberals refuse to acknowledge it, nothing’s going to change.
• It’s time to take America back. This country is moving in the wrong direction to the extent that just about everything we’re doing now is diametrically opposite to the way our founding fathers intended. The Federal government is growing by leaps and bounds and intruding into our lives more and more each day. If we’re going to get back on track, we have to lower taxes and repeal the burdensome regulations that the Democrats have forced down our throats. Mr. Starr apparently sees this as some sort of racist comment. How can this be racist? Well, again, I’m just an unenlightened oaf.
• Insulting the Black Lives Matter Movement. I don’t know of anyone who is insulting that movement. Black lives do matter and no one is saying they don’t. Mr. Starr indicates that the reason so many people are on the streets protesting is that black people are disproportionately affected by police brutality. It has nothing to do with being anti-cop. I haven’t spent a lot of time gathering statistics on law enforcement actions against blacks, but right now I just don’t see it as a major problem. If you think it is, Mr. Starr, then someone or some group needs to research it and provide reasonable statistics and proof. Then we can sit down, discuss, and hopefully develop solutions to alleviate the problems. Rioting, looting, destroying property, and injuring people won’t solve the problem if there is one. But again, maybe you and your liberal cohorts don’t want the problem solved; you just want to exacerbate it so you can continue to write your stupid and uninformed garbage.

There you have it. Like Dr. Jaime Grant who I wrote about several posts ago, it sounds like Mr. Starr is indeed a racist and looks down his nose at blacks and perhaps other minorities. Journalists like Dr. Grant and Mr. Starr are not mainstream journalists. Are they trying to get into the mainstream by writing the type of articles that they currently write? I don’t know what’s inside their heads, but this sort of writing would only appeal to the lower echelon of liberals or does it?