Mr. Thomas Don't Encourage Black People to Vote for our black Preident because he is black as a backhanded effort white voters to feel good about voting based on a candidate because he/she is white.

 Dear Reader,


In a posting on his website Cal Thomas castigates well-know news-media and other public outlets and cites by name several prominent and highly-visible and widely heard blacks encouraging them to re-elect President Obama solely on the basis that he is black and blacks need to stick together.   He is right to do so insofar as promotion of race as the sole reason for voting is racism; particularly when one seeks to trump a candidate's conduct or policies with the "race card."

However, the title of his commentary and the sub-text therein expose the real message which is "okay white people, vote for a white guy because black people do it all the time.  Unfortunately, some black people do just that.  But the persons cited by Mr. Thomas hardly reflect the overall black community, which is as focused squarely on the center of the mess we have all made of our country.

I say this because while Mr. Thomas points a lots of fingers at the sin of racism in all races and ethnic groups, and dare I say a proven fact in the history of white voters in this country, he makes no effort at all to expound upon why black voters might need to feel they should "stick together" and are susceptible to that call when they hear it.


I also believe I understand Mr. Thomas' motivation in doing so.  He can see the future and it doesn't look pretty from his particularly white, conservative-right, dwindling majority if what has happened to the black population in the country over the past five decades.


Let's examine this further.

First Mr. Thomas posits a question familiar to voters of all races and cites unemployment in the black community as an example of why blacks might consider voting on the basis of black unemployment is the highest it has been in 27 years.

Says Mr. Thomas, "If a black president cannot be held accountable for his policies and must receive the votes of African-Americans solely because of his race, then all of the marching for equal rights has been for nothing. The question ought to be this: are African-Americans, indeed, are all Americans, better off than they were when Barack Obama took office? By any objective standard, the answer must be “no.” How do black people expect their circumstances to improve if Obama is elected for another four years? If they conclude they will not, why not vote for someone who can create the conditions under which more of them might.

The unstated premise beneath this statement is that black American do not hold the President accountable based on his race and therefore all that has been accomplished in the fight for equal rights is meaningless.  Then, that black Americans need to be reminded that it's wrong to judge and vote solely on the basis of race, but all the rest of us Americans already know that.

Then, a little bit of slight of hand to misdirect.  Are we do believe that the President, with three years under his belt, has already failed the black community and it is especially the black community that needs to be reminded not to cast their votes solely on the basis of race. 

Then Mr. Thomas really gets to the heart of the matter and delivers his propaganda by calling in the use of some statistics, selectively carved out of the recent past by saying:

"How do black people expect their circumstances to improve if Obama is elected for another four years? If they conclude they will not, why not vote for someone who can create the conditions under which more of them might get a job, for example? Black unemployment is 16.7 percent, the highest it’s been in 27 years.


The period of 27 years is important here.  27 is not a number than just jumps to mind when one seeks to bolster their argument with some statistical impact.  This is the reason the past 27 years is so important.

If you go back any further then statistics get really, really nasty for the Republican Party.

Here are some facts.

Unemployment is highest for all racial groups, not just blacks.  The reason is the present miasma surrounding the economy; all solutions to which the President has proposed the Republican have rejected out-of-hand.  Anything Mr. Obama has to offer the Republicans is not just dead on arrival but dead before delivery.

By selecting only the past 27 years to examine Cal Thomas selectively leaves out the tremendous gains made by the black community, in all areas, due to the historic achievements that came about due to the efforts of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

But go back to those administrations, when change was truly happening withing and to the black community and see the reality.  The past 27 years also excludes the Nixon administration's accomplishments in the area of environmental legislation.  Now, that's a subject to which no current Republican candidate even pays lip-service.


Then Mr. Thomas' question concerning giving the first black U.S. President a second term based on the three years he has held office to date.


Over the past 45 years Republican's have held the presidency 30 years and Democrats 15 and one hundred percent of them have been white males.


So, Obama has been President 7% of that time.  The Democrats, as a whole, 33% of that time and the Republican an astonishing 60% of the time.  Then as far as race:  Blacks 7% and White 93%.  Are we to believe that this is a credit to either Republicans and white?  In general, it doesn't say much for either party or race, but it says nothing at all to those black voters who seek an alternative to white, Republican, males and there is only one person who fits that profile - the President we have right now.  


Then take a look at the following regarding changes in income relative to race and ask yourself if the black community shouldn't stick together and give Mr. Obama more time with a more moderate Congress.  Is it unreasonable for black voters to look to a candidate that most close represents them, both in race and outlook?   I don't think so.

The United States Is In A State of Civil War Whether You Acknowledge It Or Not

Make No Mistake

The United States As A Democracy Is Dead

And The Civil War Is Already Underway

It Started The Day After Barack Obama Was Inaugurated

Dear Reader,

After eight years under the republican administration of the judicially appointed George Bush II, the voters of the United States chose a Democrat for President of the United States. Despite this proof that, indeed, anyone born a U.S. Citizen can dream to become President, the reality of this proof was, and is, too much to bear for those who speak most outspokenly against the present administration of President Obama.

The declamation against a black, popularly elected, United States President began the instant the election results became commonly known. It began with character assassination demanding he “prove” he was a U.S citizen. Over the course of the election, some 18 months, those raising this question were answered with unassailable proof that Barack Obama was a U.S. Citizen. Yet, the fascist right-wing of the Republican Party and the Tea Party have kept this lie alive through the use of the public media outlets such as Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Big media outlets such as the Murdoch propaganda machine, the most widely distributed and read columnist, Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter, Rick Sanchez (former Fox News reporter, whom I personally know to be a hypocrite), Rush Limbaugh, and on and on have without fail, misrepresented facts and  claimed perceived circumstance to be fact, at every single opportunity.

Reader, this is how the Nazi party took control of the hearts and minds of the German people to such a degree that crimes against humanity could be excused and accommodated to the point that those crimes became so large that no individual could be held totally accountable and yet, no individual could be far enough removed from daily events that they could be fully exonerated.

Make no mistake – the Republican Party is now but a shell of its former self - occupied today by fascist with an agenda that in no way accommodates or supports the United States Constitution.

There was a time when honest U.S. Citizens could vote for the Republican candidate without fear or shame. That is no longer the case. Today they are presented with potential candidates that even the Republican pollsters say require likely Republican voters to look past and excuse the past conduct and current obvious lack of qualifications of the current candidates in order to hold true to their traditional Republican beliefs. Unfortunately, their party has left them behind and subverted its traditional beliefs and values to the goal of winning at all cost.

In decades past being a Republican meant, in general, supporting the status quo with a mind open to making some minimal adjustments in the governance of the economy's behavior and minimal invasion in the personal lives of citizens. Alternately, the Democratic party stood for major adjustments to the economy and major adjustment to the personal lives of citizens in terms of broadening their rights as understood and applied through the application of laws consistent with our Constitution.

Now the Republican Party states it's unhappiness with the rights of U.S. Citizens and demands adjustments to the Constitution that will write in stone and be enforced by the police powers of the United States their particular beliefs rather than wait for the pendulum of justice and public opinion to swing back in their favor. They “damn with faint praise” the U.S. Constitution by giving lip service to its words, yet all the while undermine its meaning and application when an interpretation by the Supreme Court of the land does not support that which they advocate.

The Republican Party has been undermined and high-jacked in much the same manner as Hitler used to take control of the German Republic by default when an outright takeover was rejected through a popular vote. The rhetoric of the official Republican Party has become nothing more than a high-profile outlet for the hatred of those who blame “those people” for “their views” and their “demands for rights” for everything that is wrong in the world in general and the United States in particular.

The Republican Party that exist today will be the Nazi party that exists tomorrow. They will not accede to the general election in 2012 in which I predict Barack Obama will be re-elected and the Democrat's take control of both houses of government.

Public personages such as Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh will incite the craven to acts of violence and then act as apologists for these acts of violence by appealing to an uneducated and unhappy populace. 

The forces that now own and drive the Republican Party will not be happy until their candidate, no matter how obviously unqualified is elected as their puppet, the Constitution subverted to the point that is says what they mean it to say, and the rights of those who support open and public discourse are drowned out by their media propagandists; such as Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and their host of parasites feeding on the availability of public discourse now made possible through “punch a key and hear what you already believe” electronic media.

In the end, one of their true believers, convinced by the half-truths and smoke and mirror recounting of the facts, will assassinate the President of the United States, Barack Obama. 

Mr. Thomas, Ms. Coulter and Mr. Limbaugh will express their indignation at these events but through clever turns of phrase convince citizens of the United States that this was never their intention; anymore than Rush Limbaugh arose out of the gutter slime to call Michelle Obama “uppity” but not a “nigger.”

This is what they seek as the ultimate public justification for their coming take over of our government and subversion of the rights we currently enjoy. 
And you, dear reader, will be left wondering what the phrase "Nacht und Nebel" really means and why there is no one left to speak for you. 

Cal Thomas - Apologist for Fox News -On Different Standards When It Coms to Sex - Media Applies Different Standards To Republicans and Democrats

Herman Cain's Gauntlet - As described by Cal Thomas

Again Mr. Thomas I say, put up or shut up you political apologist for the fascist right-wing "preach to me, I'm in the choir" group.

Your commentary is full of assertions you don't, because you can't, support.  Again, yet again, you sing your constant refrain "why me" instead of "why not me" as you pander to the Republican's deep desire to provide the electorate with a "black" candidate without his race being an issue.  How is it that you come so lately to believe in the equality of race considering your outright slander of Barack Obama as candidate and President?  My opinion is that you seek to promote a black candidate that is only as "black" as could be acceptable to those who would rather cut off their hand than vote for a Democrat.  

Now readers, let us all hum along as we dissect Mr. Thomas diatribe.

Ready now .....

Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton,
Old times there are not forgotten,
Look away, look away, look away Dixie Land.
In Dixie Land, where I was born in,
early on one frosty mornin',
Look away, look away, look away Dixie Land.
I wish I was in Dixie, Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand
to live and die in Dixie.
Away, away, away down south in Dixie.
Away, away, away down south in Dixie.



Many in the media wolf pack have already judged him guilty because he updated his initial statement denying the allegations. And yet The Washington Post, in association with Politico.com - which broke the "story" - routinely updates its online pages when new information comes to light.

That is a flat out lie Mr. Thomas.  Mr. Cain has never denied the allegations and therefore can not "update" his original statement.  What he has said is that he knew nothing about it, he hoped "if" it happened the settlement was small because he had "done nothing wrong."  The he broke the terms of the non-disclosure agreement by citing a portion of it which made the complainant look petty by suggesting the whole thing was someone how related to his comparing her height with that of his wife.

Is Cain, a relative media novice, expected to have instant and total recall of
events that may or may not have happened more than 10 years ago?

A media novice?  Are you on drugs Cal?  CEO of a major pizza chain, head of the National Restaurant Association is a "novice" to the media.  Keep it going Cal and someone is going to put a picture of you in and on-line dictionary next to the definition of "propaganda."  And, no we don't expect him to have "total" recall but we do expect him to not suffer from convenient incidents of amnesia.


The way this works is, if you can't give the media immediate and detailed
answers to their questions, they "raise new questions" and then when you do
provide them additional information they say you should have provided it before
and must be covering something up, prompting even more questions.

Great slight of hand Cal.  The fact is he never has given the media an immediate and detailed answer and they are not raising new questions.  He gave evasive responses, left out all detail, lied about it and then along comes you suggesting he's being treated to a level of media attention not given to someone else.  Just to make this clear Mr. Thomas, you are an accessory after the fact to Mr. Cain's dodging the medias rightful interest in his past misbehavior.  Can you blame anyone - media or man on the street - for continuing to ask questions about these events when he never gave a full and detailed answer in the first place.  Sometimes I wonder how you sleep at night.  But then, I expect you must stay up late at night trying to find just the right words to evade the truth that Mr. Cain has never "denied" the allegations - not once, not ever.  The furthest he will go is to say that he "rejects" them.  I am sure that his settlement and non-disclosure agreement for sexual harassment would prove his denying them to be a lie.  But, a full team of attorneys and you will fully agree with him "rejecting" them. Joseph Goebbles couldn't hold a candle to you for pure, outright lying.

One cannot say what, if any, political motives the anonymous female accusers
might have, or even if they helped bring these charges to Politico. So much of
this is subjective. What is known is that a charge of sexual harassment is not
proof that sexual harassment occurred.

Nope, but settling multiple such claims for lots of money sure is.

This story also has a noxious odor of racism about it.

Really?  Rush Limbaugh can call the Michelle Obama "uppity" and then not be called a racist but investigating Mr. Cain's past conduct is racist?  Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made reference to the word, fully meaning for the public and confirmation to understand he meant "uppity" nigger.

Historically, perhaps the worst stereotype directed at African-American men is that they are oversexed and constantly on the prowl for female conquests.

You are a sick-minded individual Cal Thomas to throw this hand-grenade and then run from it.  If ever they remake Blazing Saddles you can say it out loud - "where all the white woman at."  


How low do you intend to go Cal in order to get farther underneath Herman Cain in order to prop him up?

Cal Thomas, your commentary here, is as always and anywhere, discredits yourself in it's outright refusal to acknowledge reality and try to spin it into the wonderland or "Vaterland" you wish you lived in.

Why Republican = Facist

Your are reading the blog Cal Thomas Would You Please Shut Up

fas·cism/ˈfaSHizəm/
Noun:

An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Playbill for republicans are facists

View more documents from stoughne

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Subscribe to Cal Thomas, would you please either put-up or shut up. by Email


Please support the advertisers whose fees for making using of my blog page make it possible for my blog, and blogs by anyone else, to contribute to public debate. I do not need the minimal income generated by your "clicking through" these ads to support myself. However, I could never afford the expense of supporting such a blog site on my own and your viewing those advertising sponsors' messages does make this forum available to all. These ads are no security risk to your computer or your privacy for multiple reasons. First, I have absolute and total control over what ads and advertisers appear on my blog. I have nothing to gain from your visiting an advertisers site and finding as a result that your computer is infected or your privacy infringed upon. Second, these ads are placed and serviced by a reputable sales organization - AdSense. They would quickly go out of business if readers who click through the ads they place on this blog became the least bit dissatisfied by the results. Finally, Google and Blogspot.com have nothing to gain from damaging your computer or infringing on your privacy and everything to lose if they do.

Cal Thomas - Always propoganda, Always Off Base, Always Preaching To The Choir Because No One Else Is Listening

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Your are reading the blog Cal Thomas Would You Please Shut Up

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Subscribe to Cal Thomas, would you please either put-up or shut up. by Email

In order to faithfully reflect Mr. Thomas' commentary as I dissect it for this blog, I found it necessary to use two monitors so I could follow his wandering mind as it stated an opinion then failed to support it; threw multiple, irrelevant barbs at well-known Democrats to the slobbering, right-wing throngs that need no convincing of their correctness, but require a constant diet of democratic red-meat to keep them from devouring each otherlike piglets left unfed in a farrowing house. For myself, if Mr. Thomas told me the sun was shining I'd walk to a window before I was convinced.

Mr. Thomas asks "who is the biggest loser in the Herman Cain controversy?" Then first, answers himself by saying "clearly it is not Cain, whose numbers still have him tied with Mitt Romney as the frontrunner (sic) for the Republican presidential nomination."

Really Cal, take off those blinders and look at the entire race - from paying the entry fees, selecting a jockey as campaign director, consistent training, getting out of the starting gate without injuring yourself and then finally capturing the prize of becoming the President of The United States. Let me state here and now, without regard to what his polling tells you, Mr. Can will never, I repeat never, become the Republican nominee. He has clearly been raised past the point of his own competency.

Truth is, Mr. Cain has always been a loser; it is only just now coming to light. His loser status confirmed through his past bad decisions and inappropriate behavior which would be an embarrassment to someone applying for the position of fry cook to handle a wok in some street market in a third-world country. His current conduct is that of someone living a lie in which he can only "reject" but not "deny" the truth of the multiple complaints filed against him and settled for money. I know I always write large checks to those who lie about me. It is so much more expedient than making the liar prove the accusation.

Then Cal, you answer yourself for a second time with the astounding assertion that "the biggest loser is the big media, which thinks it still has the power to decide for voters who is best qualified to be president."

Did Herman hold a pistol against your head to get this confession? Your own tag line states:

"Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor." What are you but part of the big media? Do you envision yourself as some prophet wandering in the dessert speaking to those few you encounter, but still won't listen?


You should stop reading your own column in your morning newspaper and believing it because "well, it was in the papers."


Then, like a surface-to-air shoulder fired missile left behind in Afghanistan by the "Reagan and Oliver North" crew, you attempt to prove your point by taking out a few high-flying Democrats. Do you mix all this mud yourself or does some paige at Fox News do it for you?

You say (sic) "one of the women who has accused Cain of sexual harassment has a history of filing such claims against her." Honestly, can you not find an editor to correct your grammar? Or, do you mean us to understand that Cain is not a "he" but a "her" instead? And since when did it become ethical in the news media to attack the victim without first providing some evidence that they weren't a victim.

Then you attempt a "two-bird" kill with a broadside against another accuser and her attorney using the terms "celebrity and porn star lawyer Gloria Allred (who contributed to the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008) as her attorney. If the worthiness of any such complaint is to be judged on the basis of the accuser's attorney's previous clients, we shall all be sadly lacking in ompetent attorneys.

Then you attack with "that woman, Sharon Bialek, has a history of financial problems and has been involved in a paternity suit." Clearly those of us with financial problems or women who must file suit to obtain support from an errant and unwilling parent are so far beneath your contempt you can't see them amongst the audience of your readers. Cheap shot.

You say that "New York Times columnist Charles Blow of The New York Times (again, where is your editor?) can't understand why Cain isn't toast.

Then you offer to help us and him out by asserting in what can only be called a run on sentence equal to those of James Joyce that people don't trust the big media and give as evidence "big" media's inability to get out to the public the disgraceful conduct of high-profile democrats. Thank you, we had no idea until those like you in the "small" media labored to inform us.

By now you must really be wound up and attempt to deliver the killing blows by kicking the stuffing out of the straw man you have built up by saying the general public doesn't "doesn't like the double standard you apply to Democrats and Republicans. You excuse sexual indiscretions by Democrats, saying their policies are all that matter. With Republicans, you say such things -- even when they are unproved -- are enough for them to withdraw."



Then, the big ending, wherein the tired reader might reasonably expect you to support your starting proposition that Herman Cain is not the big loser. It is a characteristic of your commentaries that you fail to deliver. Instead, you tell us why he shouldn't be the big looser "for the reason that the big media knocked him off before voters have a chance to decide. This, by the way, is a preview of their approach in the coming general election."

So typical of you Cal. Always propaganda. Always Off Base. Always Preaching To The Choir Which Already Believes. Well, that's okay because no one else is listening.

To quote Joseph Nye Welch "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Please support the advertisers whose fees for making using of my blog page make it possible for my blog, and blogs by anyone else, to contribute to public debate. I do not need the minimal income generated by your "clicking through" these ads to support myself. However, I could never afford the expense of supporting such a blog site on my own and your viewing those advertising sponsors' messages does make this forum available to all. These ads are no security risk to your computer or your privacy for multiple reasons. First, I have absolute and total control over what ads and advertisers appear on my blog. I have nothing to gain from your visiting an advertisers site and finding as a result that your computer is infected or your privacy infringed upon. Second, these ads are placed and serviced by a reputable sales organization - AdSense. They would quickly go out of business if readers who click through the ads they place on this blog became the least bit dissatisfied by the results. Finally, Google and Blogspot.com have nothing to gain from damaging your computer or infringing on your privacy and everything to lose if they do.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner