December 31st, 2013

Why did the MSNBC panel feel free…

to mock the Romneys for having a black grandchild?

The main reason: their audience is so tiny and leftophile that the panel members forgot they were on TV and thought they were talking amongst themselves. Although they’ve now issued apologies and semi-apologies, it probably wasn’t until liberal CNN criticized them that they realized they might have done anything that could be considered even the least bit objectionable.

After all, the Romneys are infinitely mockable to the left, and just as with Sarah Palin the mockery goes on even though the campaign has ended. Unlike Palin, Romney has retreated from public life, but that doesn’t stop the left from continuing with the fun game of making fun of everything he and his family do.

Plus, the child is obviously going to be a black Republican. Everybody knows that black Republicans are not really black people and are therefore fair game.

[ADDENDUM: And in an only tangentially-related article, Joan Walsh bends over backwards to prove she's not one of those bad white people. She's a good white person. So please don't hate her.]

23 Responses to “Why did the MSNBC panel feel free…”

  1. James Says:

    Happy New Year Neo!

  2. DaveP. Says:

    My solution to racism in America, inone easy step:
    Have every nonwhite person in America register and vote Republican, in just one election. They can go back to their regular voting habits after that.
    Since everybody knows that minorities who vote Republican aren’t authentic (because skin color is defined politically, not genetically), this will eliminate racism completely by making every single person in America de facto Caucasian.

  3. Ymarsakar Says:

    I don’t hate you all on the Left.

    The farmer has never needed to hate the wheat to cut the tallest on the field.

    To be a bad white person, first you must qualify as something above an insect.

  4. Gringo Says:

    Joan Walsh bends over backwards to prove she’s not one of those bad white people. She’s a good white person. So please don’t hate her.

    Joanie is one of those brain-dead lib journos. Recall how upset she was to find out that her SAT scores were the same as Dubya’s. Which according to libs, proves she IS brain-dead. :)

  5. dicentra Says:

    Why did they feel free to mock the Romneys?

    Because EVERYBODY KNOWS the Romneys are racists, so the presence of this black kid must cause those Romneys some serious cognitive dissonance, amiright?

    Must be hilarious to see the emotional acrobatics those Romneys must have to do just to keep from ordering the kid to step and fetchit, right there in public.

    Whereas us? Self-congratulation cannot be done enough, so please excuse us (NOT!) for doing it on live TV.

  6. Mac Says:

    I didn’t know that about the SAT scores. That’s hilarious.

    About the Romney adoption: I live in Alabama. I have personally attended two interracial weddings, and by interracial I mean black-white. Both couples are Christian and more or less conservative. Both still live in Alabama and don’t seem to live in fear of racist violence. American reality is very different from the liberal fantasy.

  7. Lizzy Says:

    These are people who thought it was OK to mock Trig Palin for having Downs Syndrome, who lectured that he should’ve been aborted. Also mocked Bristol Palin for not doing what they’d be darn sure their own girlfriends & daughters would have discreetly taken care of. So, no surprise or horror at this point.

    Republicans (and conservatives in general) are not real people, just jokes awaiting a snarky, condescending punchline.

  8. Sam L. Says:

    They live in their own bubble, where all think alike, and no alternative thought is allowed. How could they possibly know? They’ve never heard of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

  9. Eric Says:

    For them, the partisan competition is the forever war and the only war that matters. Or at least that’s the war that matters most even when the nation is in a real war.

  10. Richard Saunders Says:

    The less real racism there is in America, the more the progos have to find it.

  11. ErisGuy Says:

    A great injury has been done to the child, and this injury is deserving of mockery. The child has been adopted by white, American, Mormons to be raised apart from its natural Black heritage and be forever alienated from its Black culture. The child will be cursed with “acting white.” Worse, the child is being raised by people who love liberty, capitalism, and America. This makes the child a candidate for the coming Gulag. And still worse, the child is being raised as a Mormon, the most contemptible of flying spaghetti monster delusions because it is American.

    Well, that’s what they think. I think the opposite.

  12. Bob Says:

    One of the undertones of their mockery is the size of the Romney family. This subset of nasty progressives actively goes after anyone with more than one child, and heaven forbid if anyone has more than a few grandchildren. I have personally heard these nasty progressives attack anyone who reproduces more than they think is acceptable, think it is trashy, ignorant and backward that they do not use birth control and abortion in the manner they see as acceptable. They are seen as using too many resources that progressives think are better used for themselves. They did this to Palin also. The very idea that someone wants children is beyond their selfish, lazy, hateful personalities. Of course this is not applied to approved minorities or victim constituencies.

  13. SteveH Says:

    “”The less real racism there is in America, the more the progos have to find it.”"

    MLK sought equality for blacks. But modern liberals want no such thing. They’re so certain of blacks being an inferior race, that an equally applied system of opportunity and justice will never suffice.

    And they call conservatives racist.

  14. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Democrat party has been creating racism since at least 1864.

  15. Ymarsakar Says:

    As for over population, the design and intent of the Gaian cult is to destroy humanity. That means destroying the reproduction rate as well, while increasing abortion for defective races such as inferior blacks. The Left’s noblesse oblige for white people must keep the blacks on the plantation. Abortion is as good a tool as any to prevent them from over breeding.

  16. waitforit Says:


    Your comment (at 9:44) inspired a thought.

    Democrats did not create “racism.” I doubt if you believe that since obviously you know racism is historical.

    God created “racism” by virtue that he created families and nations. Read in the Bible where God assigned to each a portion of the earth.

    Yet God approves when we transcend our perceptions of oneness based on color or culture. He has instituted a path where, at the beginning, we are familiar and comfortable with what we know and grew up with, and that is family, community,and nation. That’s the structure and it is not going to change.

    That fact is evidence for the Bible. Why don’t we have a world government? Ever thought about that? We should have. After WWII it was possible. If the U.S. wanted to impose itself, it could have.

    Most people miss that doubt (mistrust, racism in that others outside the family, community, and nation are doubted) is good. How else to inscribe boundaries and yet preserve differences?

    It serves God’s purposes that as we grow in spiritual awareness and leave physical distinctions behind we attain His purpose. But that path is a choice, free will, where we choose each node of the path, where will stop or advance based upon the integrity of our gathering of knowledge.

    And we cannot gainsay God’s path. We cannot deny that the choice against racism happens later in the path. To do so creates a monstrosity, the progressive monstrosity. The choice has to arrive as God intended when it should, after the person is a person as he knows. Then the challenge of a person different in color or culture suggests a vertical and not horizontal decision. If we are not “white” or “black” then what are we?

    Something we cannot see?

    Against this proposition, we see the allegations of those who do not understand and do not appreciate the structure of God’s purpose. In attempting to create the end they destroy the means and thereby the end because they do not have the power or authority to prescribe the means.

    On the other hand, do you want a same color meeting? Go to a political meeting. Do you want a multi-color meeting? Go to Church. People of faith demonstrate that their faith transcends color and culture.

    Faith in God resolves the conflict, but in a peculiar way. God requires that we pass through the conflict and so come to appreciate and have gratitude for the power of his Being to create diversity from his unity. Man simply does not have that. Our attempts deny freedom and degenerate, quickly, into horror and madness.

  17. Ymarsakar Says:

    I’m not attempting to cover the generic topic of human racism, as in the idea that DNA is inferior or superior from one area to another.

    The Democrat party of 1864 had a specific kind of racism. It was maintained throughout American political culture, it was the reason for Jim Crow, and it continued on to modern days (21st century).

    The race war of the US is primarily a white vs black thing, but that racism was not merely because of human DNA differences.

    Racism isn’t really about having different ways to differentiate genetic populations. Skin color isn’t always the basis for genetic differences either. For example, eye color is just as good an indicator for ethnic differences sometimes.

    The racial theory, based upon DNA when DNA wasn’t even recognized as real in the US, in 1864 was the blacks did not have free will, but may or may not have had a soul. So having a soul, they were deserving of political recognition, but lacking free will they needed someone to take care of them. As a white man takes care of his dog. The dog doesn’t get to vote or run for office. Even though yellow dog Democrats are said to have voted for yellow dogs if it ran for the Democrat seat against a Northern Republican. Democrats in 1864 was not going to let blacks vote for anyone, or run for elected seats. This was based upon an inherent eugenics foundation, not god based, of limited free will (which isn’t Christian based).

    In the end, neither the racists nor the modern patriots sitting here, were ever concerned about skin or eye color. They were always, and firstly, concerned with free will, with basic definitions of humanity. Whether you were considered a human or not, had certain political and military ramifications. Genetic differences, superiority or inferiority, was the ice cream on top people came up afterwards as a way to justify what they couldn’t rationalize or explain.

    The reason why the abolitionists didn’t like slavery and why they were primarily Christians, is because when God commanded that all men were made to be free and fully formed from birth, due to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, this was not something they just read and threw away like a magazine. They actually believed it. And because they believed it, nobody, not even their own countrymen in the South, could gainsay it in their eyes.

  18. Gringo Says:

    The MSNBC crew once again shows its reprehensible side- is there any other? :) . The Romney family is not the only one to have a cross-racial adoption. Mr. & Mrs. Duck Dynasty adopted a mixed-race child. [Interesting that Melissa Harris-Perry has a white mother. :) ]

    Unfortunately, good intentions are not enough when it comes to cross-racial adoptions. While within the family, or even within the community, the adopted cross-racial child experiences life as a person and not as a member of a race or ethnic group, sooner or later someone in the outside world will treat the adopted child not as a person, but as a member of a race. This encounter can be difficult, even devastating. I will give two examples I know of.

    Some family friends adopted an East Asian child. The parents were both professionals. In earlier years, things appeared to go well. After high school, the adoptee went off to California. When she attempted to socialize with some white peers, she was informed: “Whites socialize with whites. Asians socialize with Asians. Go socialize with your own kind.” She had never experienced such treatment growing up in a lily white suburb on the East Coast. She was never able to cope with this, and ended up committing suicide some years later.

    Even if the white parents try to give the adopted child some warning or experience about being treated as a member of a race or ethnic group and not a person, they may not do a good job of it, lacking the experience that parents of the same race or ethnic group as the adopted child would have.

    A childhood friend of the Afro-American persuasion told me a story about this. Some professional parents in my lily white home area adopted a black male child. They made some attempt at giving the child some exposure to black people. They had him visit a black family in the next town over, my home town- my friend’s family. She told me that when the black adopted child visited her family, his attitude was one of “What am I doing here visiting YOU?” While he was adopted by white professional parents, who had the best of intentions, the black adopted child ended up in prison. My friend attributes this end to the tension between getting very different treatment from his white adoptive parents and whites outside the family [not all whites outside the family, mind you.], and not being able to resolve the difference.

    If the adopting parents are adopting a child for the wrong reasons, the adoption can end up poorly, even if both the adopted child and the adopting parents are of the same race. Some distant relatives- but close enough for us to receive a Christmas letter relating the events of the year- adopted a young girl. The adopting parents were both professionals. Why did they adopt? They had one child, a son, who had expressed a wish to have a baby sister. So they adopted her- like getting a toy for their son. It did not end well. While the Christmas letters were full of praise for her, much was left unsaid. I am told she now weighs 300 pounds, which is one symptom of the problem. Some of the problems with the adoption probably had to do with her being of average intelligence and comparing herself with high achieving parents and brother- a Ph.D. and two M.Ds. I suspect some of the dynamic occurred with the other two families I mentioned.

    While adoption is overall a good thing, it needs to be done with care. Just like normal biological parenting.

  19. waitforit Says:

    I hear ya man. Totally.

  20. Ymarsakar Says:

    She was never able to cope with this, and ended up committing suicide some years later.

    That’s what happens when one makes the fatal mistake of accepting people as human. When you accept a person as human, you also accept that killing them has negative consequences and that their judgment of you has validity.

    Society is not such a soft thing that you can just let anyone within your mental sphere, pass the border patrols and house door. Humanity has always treated strangers as non-human, targets, threats, dangers, or monsters. Western civilization, white civilization, thinks to treat all humans, including strangers, as equal. That equality is the poison to human survival. The weak tend to die off in droves when exposed to such poison. Only a few become stronger as a result.

    Nations don’t treat everyone as equals. Neither should individuals. Equality is a nice ideal, but it’s sort of like Utopia and Islamic Jihad’s conception of heaven. It is fundamentally anti-human and anti-life on the face. Now if you achieved strength on a personal level equal or matching divinity, you can do whatever you want. But few humans ever achieve that kind of strength. The ability to accept everyone around you as a human, your peers, able and capable of judging you, yet not hating them and destroying them when their judgment is injustice incarnate, is not something people can achieve with half hearted intent. It requires a bit of luck as well.

    There are filters in the human mind designed originally to separate out stranger-danger, associates (face known), friends (semi trust levels), true friends (battle buddies, life entrusted to each other), family (fates and bloodlines entrusted to each other). In a hierarchical society like Japan, everyone sort of knows where the limits for this is. In a society built on meritocracy and equality, like America, few people are ever taught what the barriers and limits are. So they step over them without realizing it, then get doused down with the poison of Western democracy, decay as a diseased corpse, and die before they even get any immunity to the disease.

  21. Ymarsakar Says:

    “Whites socialize with whites. Asians socialize with Asians. Go socialize with your own kind.”

    Those with free will associate with others of free will. I call them the human community. Cattle and tools are potentially dangerous, they are put in the toolbox and any human may use them. Stay away from the chain saws though. Then there’s the corrupt and evil people. They’re like radioactive metal. Don’t even look at them.

    In the same fashion that rabid dogs and snakes are something we warn children about and tell them that they will probably be attacked if they play around with rabid dogs and snakes, so the same can be said for those who were once human. Or those who have not yet achieved full humanity, either way there’s danger associated with strangers and people you don’t know. You never know what they are or what they got on em.

  22. Old Surfer Says:

    I was fortunate enough to grow up in Hawaii, back when everyone there called it a “melting pot”. I went to public school, and the major racial difference was that after school the Japanese kids went off to “japanese School” where they learned more about their culture. The rest of us, haoles and hawaiians, portagees and chinks, went off to Cub Scouts or whatever.
    I dated Chinese, Hawaiian and white and thought nothing of it. There were very few “Blacks” in Hawaii – “Papololo”, but they got treated just like everyone else.
    Haoles were a minority at the time, and occasionally there were minor incidence – mostly name-calling or ‘beefs” in the water over dropping in on a wave. Looking back, it really was Paradise. The divisiveness happening now is a real horror story and it’s driven by the left, Democrats and, I’m ashamed to say, an alumni of my highschool.

  23. Toni Says:

    The poor child will grow up with liberals exclaiming to them, “you’re black, of course you are a democrat!” “Why would you vote against everyone who is against you?”. As an asian american, I get this all of the time. People assume that I benefit from the government because I am asian or that the democrats or “white people” are supporting my rights because I can’t stand up for myself. They also find it hard to understand why I am partnered with a white man versus an asian man. Ignorance after all of these years. Tiring.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge