Say it loud, say it proud: I am a racist! *UPDATED*

It’s becoming increasingly clear what the Democratic campaign strategy is going to be this election season: Vote for Obama or you’re a racist. I’m not sure I think too much of this approach to bullying the American electorate into selecting a candidate. Aside from the fact that, if you’re a Republican, it’s always a mistake to let your adversary define you, it also seems to me to free people from certain otherwise laudatory restraints.

As for me, because I’m preemptively being defined as a racist (since I most certainly won’t vote for Obama), I’ve decided to step up to the plate and embrace that definition. From here on in, I’ve got my mantra.

When I vote against Obama on November 4, 2008:

  • It won’t be because Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which I think will weaken America’s interests beyond repair, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama thinks that a nuclear Iran is no threat to the Western World, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because I think it’s an incredibly stupid idea for the most powerful nation in the world to approach evil totalitarian dictators as a supplicant, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because I hate the idea of a President who will subordinate America’s interests to the UN (as he inevitably will), it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama has the thinnest resume ever in the history of Presidential candidates, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because I think Obama’s Leftist connections (Ayres, Dohrn, Soros, Pfleger, Wright, etc.) show him to be either stupid about or complicit with an agenda antithetical to basic American values, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama consistently chooses as advisers people who have opted for the wrong side in the completely binary debate about Israel’s right to exist, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama wants to socialize American medicine, which I believe will destroy the high quality of medical care available to most Americans, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama wants to gut the military and reduce us to a nation with a big target painted on our collective backside, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama wants to gut the Second Amendment and destroy Americans’ Constitutional right to protect themselves from foreign and domestic enemies, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama has already announced loud and clear that he will support activist judges who place their “feelings” above the law, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama supports judicial decisions creating a right to gay marriage, when I think that decision is one for the voters, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama’s announced that he will dramatically increase taxes, putting the slow, inflexible, ill-informed government in charge of what should be a quick-reacting, knowledgeable marketplace, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama’s record in the Senate (albeit short and undistinguished) has been so liberal he makes Teddy Kennedy look like a reactionary, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama’s an open-borders kind of guy, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama has shown himself to be a scarily slow thinker and speaker when released from the teleprompter (which really doesn’t bode well for those cozy private chats with Ahmadinejad, Jong-Il, and Assad), it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama’s wife clearly loathes America and everything it stands for, despite the fact that she’s done pretty well out of it, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama was affiliated for more than 20 years with a church that preached white hatred and began to care only when it looked as if it would affect his campaign, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama was good buddies with Tony Rezko, and other sleazy characters (showing again that Obama was complicit or a singularly bad judgment of character), it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama’s a compulsive liar who clearly thinks we in the public are too stupid to catch up with his lies, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama’s campaign has proven to be fly-paper for every two bit troofer and anti-Semite in America, it will be because I’m a racist.
  • It won’t be because Obama’s promised already to start down the totalitarian path of purging his predecessors through criminal prosecutions, it will be because I’m a racist.

All things considered, when I think about being a racist as I’ve defined it, not as they have, let me say it loud and let me say it proud: I am a racist — and, on November 4, 2008, this racist is not voting for Obama.

UPDATE: Welcome, readers from Confederate Yankee, The Anchoress and American Thinker! To new visitors, if you’d like to leave a comment (and feel welcome to do so), you’ll have to register. Your first post will automatically be sent to moderation, where it will sit for a couple of hours, since I’ll be out and about for quite a while, and won’t be able to update things. [It’s Disqus now, so no registration required.]

UPDATE II: With regard to Obama’s habit of associating with truly unsavory people, whether because of their criminal antics or their political, religious, or racial beliefs, Terry Trippany has a good list identifying many of Obama’s “friends.”

UPDATE III: Here is the back story, telling what motivated this post.

UPDATE IV:  Welcome, Conservative Grapevine readers.  Feel free to take a look around while you’re here.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Helen Losse

    Doing Love by Henri Nouwen

    Often we speak about love as if it is a feeling. But if we wait for a feeling of love before loving, we may never learn to love well. The feeling of love is beautiful and life-giving, but our loving cannot be based in that feeling. To love is to think, speak, and act according to the spiritual knowledge that we are infinitely loved by God and called to make that love visible in this world.

    Mostly we know what the loving thing to do is. When we “do” love, even if others are not able to respond with love, we will discover that our feelings catch up with our acts.

  • Pingback: Sarge Says()

  • suek

    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Matthew 7:21

    “does” … an active verb.

  • Helen Losse
  • suek

    Ymar…need a translation, if you’re able…!!!

  • judyrose

    Yeah, Ymar, me too! I read it twice and have no idea…

  • Ymarsakar

    For poetry, usually it’s a good idea to ask Neo-neocon, but I’ll try.

    In general terms, it seems to be about how disaster relief requires more than individual people being alone.

    Moses or his clan breached the walls of Jericho by acquiring the loyalty of a prostitute who put down ropes of cloth over the walls. Apocryphal although depending on how tall the walls were, not entirely without plausibility.

    Not really sure how the biblical reference was supposed to be used here. Other than that, well, walls fall due to more than one person.

    As applied to this thread, I suppose you may take it as a comment on how race relations takes more than one race. A superior race and a downtrodden race, you may say.

    is a verb,” she explains.

    Other than the line that suggests that heaven includes rather than excludes, the sparsity of meaning and clarity prevents my piercing the veil.

  • Helen Losse

    Luke 10:25-37 (New International Version)

    25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    26″What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

    27He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]”

    28″You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

    29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

    30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

    36″Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

    37The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
    Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels()

  • Ymarsakar

    AN argument for socialism essentially, saying that to be saved in Christianity means loving thy neighbor and Jesus Christ. Emotion is the only thing that matters, essentially.

    The thing with socialism, though, is that it needs a dictator or somebody in authority at the top that tells people what to do. God for spiritual matters, government for secular matters.

  • suek

    >>AN argument for socialism essentially, saying that to be saved in Christianity means loving thy neighbor and Jesus Christ. Emotion is the only thing that matters, essentially.>>

    Disagree on this. It _does_ say that giving away all of one’s possessions and doing charitable acts are required for eternal salvation. It does _not_ say that if the government _takes_ all your possessions (or even part of them) and distributes them, or if the government provides medical care for every person from the possessions it has taken from you, that you derive _any_ spiritual benefit at all.

    Delegating charity to the government means that the person from whom the goods are taken cannot have any morality from that act – because there is no free will in the charitable act. There is no choice.

    In essence, socialism is directly antithetical to morality.

  • suek

    Oops… conflated two different quotes…the other being “Go, sell what you have and give it to the poor”
    Different, but the same.

    I’m not a bible quotation expert, I fear. Some of them stick with me, but not as many as I’d like.

    There was another quote I was looking for the other day connected to this…something to the effect of “Charity without works is dead”. Or maybe it was “Works without charity is dead”….I’m inclined to the former due to the use of “is” rather than “are”…but when I searched, I couldn’t find either or anything close to it. Maybe some good evangelicals might know what I’m referring to? or maybe I just picked it up somewhere else….

  • Helen Losse

    James 2:14-20 (New International Version)

    14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

    18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
    Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

    19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

    20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

  • Helen Losse

    suek, Not only am I a Christian, but I know how to use Google. :-)

  • suek

    I don’t use Google – at least not directly – I use dogpile … which, of course also uses google. My small – probably useless – protest against google’s fascist internet policies.

    However…obviously I used the wrong search terms, and probably the wrong bible(as in, I didn’t see the Catholic version that I am accustomed to) reference.

    So…if the government feeds the hungry and ministers to the sick, is the government going to heaven?

  • Helen Losse

    SueK, You have obviously missed the point once again. The point is, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DECLARE THAT I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOUR POLITICS. You are not in charge of who goes to heaven any more than I am. Fact is, God decides.

    When you said, “Helen is also not a Christian,” you attacked me PERSONALLY. I think this blog is about political opinion, NOT PERSONAL ATTACK.

    Of course, the government isn’t going to heaven. Heaven is for individual people, those who trust that Christ’s payment on the cross cleansed them from sin. Feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick is the job of the church. But the church isn’t doing it’s job. Enter the government.

  • Pingback: Soccer Dad()

  • Ymarsakar

    And when the government turns out to be unable to do the “job”, enter the tyrant and the revolution.

  • judyrose

    I know I’ll hate myself in the morning, but here goes…

    So Helen, since I’m not a Christian and don’t trust that Christ’s payment on the cross cleansed me from sin (I don’t buy the original sin idea at all), then by your definition of who gets into heaven, I’m not going. So why should I bother to do any good works in my life?

    After all, if I’m going to spend all of eternity in hell anyway, then I might as well spend my life committing every sin I can think of. There is no use for an idea like right vs. wrong. There is no eternal reward for non-believers. I’m on a one way street – and don’t give me the “if you accept Jesus Christ…” speech because that’s no answer. Assume that I won’t and tell me why I should bother to do any good works in my life.

  • Helen Losse


    I was speaking to Suek, who says she is a Christian, using a definition of “Christian,” accepted by most Christians (especially Conservative Christians). Suek is questioning that I am who God says I am. Thus, I spoke in this manner.

    If I had been speaking directly to you, I would have spoken differently. I believe there is reason to believe that Jesus’ payment on the cross was for the sin of all people, not just those who are Christian. Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all people to me.”

    Now does “be lifted up” refer to the cross or to worship? It is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified. So if it means that, then all of us are “drawn to Jesus” whether we like it or not. If it means worshiped, than we have other problems, because that means salvation is through worship, not faith. I believe salvation is by faith.

    To make a long story short, I think there is a very good chance we (Helen and Judy) will meet in heaven. But I’m not God, so I won’t make a promise I can’t carry out. I can’t promise you heaven and back it up. (Jesus does do that.) I am a Christian because I think Jesus is God. Other religions do not.

    I wouldn’t give up on being a “good person,” because I think you probably like being a good person, that there’s something in it for you on this earth. I enjoy doing “good works,” and my bet is you do, too. You wouldn’t be commenting on this blog, if you didn’t want to do the right thing. Everyone here does. (We may see things differently, but all of us are trying to do what is right.)

    The definition of salvation that I gave Suek says I will have eternal life. I’m not about to say that you won’t. You’ll have to work that out for yourself. I am not God, and I am not in charge of who goes to heaven. This comment was not intended to insult you.

  • Helen Losse


    So we should just give up because you think there might be a tyrant and a revolution?

    Meanwhile, the hungry and and the sick are just SOL?

    This doesn’t sound like a plan to me.

  • suek


    It isn’t based on politics. It’s based on definition. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Those teachings include exhortations to give to the poor, feed the hungry and minister to the sick and dying. If you thoughtfully make choices that take those actions away from the individual and give them to the government – which as you point out, cannot go to heaven – then you are making choices that deny the individual the ability to do that which is required to follow Christ. You do this on the basis of preventing suffering – when it is not your place to prevent suffering (other than by doing good works yourself). You seek to make this life on earth more perfect by removing free will from others. _That’s_ why I say that you are not Christian.

    >> You are not in charge of who goes to heaven any more than I am. Fact is, God decides.>>

    That’s a given. In fact, from your passionate defense, I believe you are absolutely sincere. It’s just that as difficult as it is to accept the imperfections of life, it is morally inconsistent to “fix” the problems of life by handing over the problems to a moral nonentity like the government. _We_ are responsible for our lives, and what we do, just as are those who fail to do so. It is wrong to remove _our_ rights to fail, just as it is immoral to remove the rights of others to fail.

  • Helen Losse

    Suek, We kick the dust from my feet at the spot where our lives intersected. Without an apology, you cease to exist for me.

  • suek

    >>Assume that I won’t and tell me why I should bother to do any good works in my life.>>

    See…this is odd. It seems to me that you and Helen are on the wrong sides! I would find it perfectly logical for you to be in favor of government taking care of those who are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves. You don’t have a religious belief of responsibility – that is, of either the individual being responsible for him/herself, or the responsibility of the individual to care for those who cannot care for themselves. Helen, on the other hand, _does_ believe that we have a responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves, but wants to hand it over to the government, which would negate any spiritual benefit she would get for doing charity herself, simply because it’s too big a job for any one person.

    >>if I’m going to spend all of eternity in hell anyway>>

    Except that you don’t believe in hell. In Catholic theology, the worst that happens to you is Limbo – a state of eternal nothing, I think is the best definition. You die and pass into non-existence.

    >> then I might as well spend my life committing every sin I can think of.>>

    But you can’t commit a sin if you don’t believe it _is_ a sin. Again, Catholic teaching (sorry – that’s what I am!) is that the matter has to be wrong (for mortal sin, it has to be a serious wrong), you have to _know_ it’s a (serious) wrong, and you have to consent to it of your own free will.

    >>There is no use for an idea like right vs. wrong. >>

    There is _always_ right and wrong – there’s just a difference in who sets the standards. Religious people believe in God’s laws. Non-religious people effectively make themselves God – they set their own standards for right and wrong. People who truly have no standards of right and wrong are anti-social and usually are the worst kind of criminals. Statists (socialists and communists) set up the State as God. Whatever the state establishes as right and wrong is right or wrong. The right and wrong the State establishes is based on what is seen to benefit the State – it can change tomorrow.

    >>There is no eternal reward for non-believers.>>

    Maybe. Don’t know the answer to that – no one has come back with answers!

    And by the way…as a Catholic, church doctrine teaches that you have to be baptised to reach heaven. However, it also teaches that there are several means of baptism, one of which is baptism of desire. That is, if you have the desire to live in the best way possible according to what you have been learned in life, and follow your own code of right and wrong to the best of your ability, you have achieved a baptism of desire. Whether you like it or not! Sometimes I think the Catholic Church is sneaky…!

  • suek

    >>Without an apology, you cease to exist for me.>>

    I wonder at that!

  • judyrose

    Thank you both, Helen and suek, for your answers. Of course, my question was somewhat rhetorical, but I was asking for the purpose of finding out how Christian doctrine deals with (good) people like me, who aren’t Christians, particularly with regard to responsibilities and rewards.

    I do believe in responsibility. Each of us has the responsibility to take care of him/herself. I don’t believe we are responsible to take care of others against our will (that’s where I object to most government entitlement programs) but I agree that charity, freely given, is good. Helen is right that I do enjoy living a good life for its own sake.

    I definitely believe in right and wrong although it’s not based in religious teachings. And yes, sin is a religious term, but it’s so commonly used that I borrowed it.

    I don’t know what happens at the end, and I don’t expect to know until I get there – if there’s any “there” to get to. But I don’t worry about it. I’ve got enough to do.

    I realize that conversations like this one can get a little testy especially if people believe that the teachings of their particular religion are the “only right way.” But you both answered in good faith and I thank you for that.

  • suek

    >>conversations like this one can get a little testy especially if people believe that the teachings of their particular religion are the “only right way.”>>

    Heh. It’s not so much that I believe that my particular religion is the “only right way” as it is that I don’t know any other. I have been exposed somewhat to other religions, but nothing I’ve heard or seen so far has indicated a better framework for living as well as dying. Catholicism has it’s problems, but it’s effort is to direct us to reach eternal life by living _this_ life according to a morality that is fairly simple and reasoned. When I see the mish-mosh of laws Congress has managed to pass, I appreciate the beauty and simplicity of the 10 commandments…one way or another, they apply to almost every choice we debate.

    I had one friend (who I found a rather odd person, by the way) who said she had become a Catholic because it was the church with the greatest intellectual freedom. I thought that was an odd evaluation – I still do – but she had apparently researched several religions and said that they had all told her she _had_ to believe certain things that she questioned. The essence of the Catholic church’s belief is the Nicene Creed. Outside of those, there _is_ a lot of latitude, although that latitude is restricted by the application of logic. The Catholic church is very logical – as long as you accept the basic precepts. If you don’t, then you don’t. We view faith as a gift, by the way, not as an act of the will.

    Anyway – I _assume_ that Helen – and you – will make the choices that appear to you to be right. I don’t have a problem with your “right” – or Helen’s – being different from mine on a moral basis. I _do_ object to efforts to enforce moral strictures through the use of government – which of course, then becomes a political discussion. And that’s where we started!

  • Helen Losse

    FYI: “Mark 6:11 “And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.” (NIV)”


    This is why I spoke thusly to suek. Every opinion I hold is because I am a Christian. I try hard not be an obnoxious Christian. As a human being, sometimes I fail.

    I have NOT left the Bookworm Room. That comment was aimed at one person only. And BTW, I do believe suek is a Christian; That’s why I used Biblical principles in my relations with her. I believe she will be in heaven. I also believe that without apology, she has forced me to sever any relationship we might have had (not that I think very many close relationships are formed on the web.)

  • Ymarsakar

    So we should just give up because you think there might be a tyrant and a revolution?

    I’m not the one that gave up on studying and debating history in order to streamline the solutions of today and tomorrow. I leave that kind of disorganized planning to the Left.

  • Helen Losse


    Do what? The civil rights movement of the 60s isn’t history?

  • suek

    >>disorganized planning>>

    Isn’t that an oxymoron?

  • Ymarsakar

    History encompasses the entirety of written and even some oral time periods, Helen. It does not encompass, solely, the personal and anecdotal events of which one single person finds of exceptional interest.

  • suek

    Helen…I had to read your statements twice to realize that you were asking that I apologize rather than stating that you would cut yourself off without apology.
    I apologize for offending you. I did mean to challenge your beliefs – not your identity, but that is apparently what I did.

    I separate religion and politics – not because one does not affect the other, but because identifying them as a unity takes away free will. Religion states ideal behavior, politics (manifested by laws) determines the least acceptable behavior a society will accept. When you merge them, there’s no room for individual choices – which religion requires. That’s why I hold the position that advocating for the government to take over the acts of charity that are required for spiritual growth is not consistent with Christianity.

    I suspect there’s ground somewhere in the middle – perhaps we can find it?

  • Helen Losse

    Suek, Apology accepted.

  • Ymarsakar

    Isn’t that an oxymoron?

    Only if you don’t realize that Stalin’s 5 year plan on feeding and industrializing ended up with grains rotting in the silos while people starved because the bureaucrats wouldn’t ship the food out in time.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Stop The ACLU()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()

  • Pingback:

  • charma


    I don’t understand how you can equate poor people having too little money due to rich people having too much money.

    If we didn’t have rich people that own companies and employ 1,000’s then there were be no jobs. Sorry, Helen, but because somebody has applied themselves and worked their butts off to succeed does not make them the cause of poor people being poor.

    Everybody in this country gets a free education, it is up to the individual to apply themselves and succeed. If they succeed in K-12, they can go onto college with scholarships, grants, student loans, etc., or to a community college.

    This concept is called personal responsibility which liberals and democrats never seem to grasp. The reason for so many poor in our nation today is not due to Republicans or rich people, it is due to the liberals believing and teaching that everyone is entitled to everything and that if you can’t take care of yourself, let the government take care of you.

    There are thousands of stories of impoverished Americans going back to school in their 30s, 40s, and up and obtaining their high school diplomas and then a college degree. They did this for themselves. Again, personal responsibility.

    Those that do take care of the poor are the ones that should, churches, non-profit organizations, individuals with a heart for Christ and others.

    P.S. I will not be voting for Sen. Obama for all the reasons listed in this blog, plus more, thus for the first time in my life I am a racist.

  • DLBowers63

    Helen Losse on 11 Jun 2008 at 10:06 pm 13

    “This discussion won’t last a week. At least, my part of it won’t. That’s a fact.”

    Well, this has been a VERY interesting little discussion!!
    I guess I will throw the “proverbial” hat in the ring and want to be considered “racist” TOO!

    Helen may not be keeping up with this now, but as you can see, the date she made this statement was on the 11th…
    Today is the 29th, the last comment was on the 26th…
    Maybe my math “ain’t” what it should be, but it appears to me that “might” be a little more than a week?!
    Well, looks like there is MORE interest and passion about THIS article than what Helen THOUGHT!!
    Put THAT in your liberal pipes and smoke it a while!!!

  • Pingback: Rational, Sane, Non-Super-Liberal-Leftist-Socialist People Oppose Obama Because They Are Racists « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT()

  • Pingback: An Obama Presidency Would Mean 4 More Years of Playing the Race Card « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT()

  • pst314

    “I am a Democrat because I think the government is big enough and powerful enough to make some of the changes I agree with.”
    Helen, do you realize how fascistic that sounds? (But then, modern liberalism owes a great deal to early 20th Century fascism.)

  • sfcmac

    Hey Helen:
    Now that the Obama regime has been in office for almost 3 years, and inflicted damage that will take years to unscrew, how’s that “Hope and Change” working out?