Another Reason Why You're Racist

You gotta love the Daily Kos, where all the liberal fruitcakes find a welcome environment. Recently they ran a post entitled "You might be a racist if....." and compiled a list of indicators that proves people dislike non-whites. The sad thing is, they're serious. As a heart attack.

Some examples from the post--my own parenthetic snark has been added for comedic relief:

You are oblivious to "white privilege". (Because all whites are born rich and get everything handed to them. I'm proof.)

You have to build your own compound in North Idaho because the rest of North Idaho is not "White" enough for you. (A true racist would live in South Idaho.)

You still insist president Obama is from Kenya. (This has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It says so on the Internet.)

You still refer to Mexicans as beaners. (I prefer wetbacks, actually.)

You think racism is a thing of the past OR that any brown person who objects to your lovely unkind generalization about brown people is themselves racist against white people -- because unfortunately you are not sure what racism is. (Wow. That's a lot of words in one sentence. You must have gone to college.)

You indicate "some of my best friends are . . ." (Retarded? Indian? Republican? This means nothing.)

You continually say, "I hate rap and hip hop. It's not music." (Oh, so if dislike something mainly performed by black people, that means I hate black people? This argument makes no sense.)

And now let's add one more item to the list. If you enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, you might be a racist.

Some wetback school principal in Oregon--ooops, I'm sorry, a Mexican-American school principal in Oregon--came up with this one.

I'll tell ya....I cannot put into my own words what Verenice Gutierrez, the principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, says, so I'm just going to quote a chunk of the article. To wit:


"Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.

Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year. 'What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?' says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood. 'Another way would be to say: "Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?" Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.'

Guitierrez, along with all of Portland Public Schools’ principals, will start the new school year off this week by drilling in on the language of 'Courageous Conversations,' the district-wide equity training being implemented in every building in phases during the past few years. Through intensive staff trainings, frequent staff meetings, classroom observations and other initiatives, the premise is that if educators can understand their own “white privilege,” then they can change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance."

In other words, what you eat, whether you realize it or not, makes you a racist, and makes children cry.

(Also, in a continuing example of our crumbling education system, teachers have to learn how they themselves are awful for being white in order to properly teach the non-white. The future is in good hands!)

Now you know, you racist, peanut-butter eating cracker. Shame on you for being alive. I bet you use white bread, too. Typical. You should only use wheat bread to prove your racial sensitivity; either that or use torta. Or pita.

I'm not sure how much racism still exists in our country. The left keeps racism alive by telling us how racist we are depending on how we think or act, and there's something wrong with that. Is it part of a thought-control effort, do they hate America, or are they just trying to get stuff?

So remember this list as you prepare for your day, and for God's sake pack your peanut butter and jelly sandwich in a racially non-specific carrying container. Do not use a brown paper bag.

Richard Nixon, Jack Benny, and Barrack Obama Walk into a Bar

It's hard not to chuckle when Greg Gutfeld and his Fox News Red Eye team flash "Obama-geddon-care-o-gate" on the TV when the president's health law comes up for discussion. I'm frankly surprised that the right wing hasn't officially added the suffix "Gate" to Obamacare by now, considering the lies upon lies, the incompetence, and the overall disaster of the ACA.

I've been a student of the original "gate" scandal, Water, for some time. The reveal of Deep Throat was a Watergate fan's Superbowl--finally, we knew the whole story. I'm also a collector of old time radio shows from the Golden Age of broadcasting, and many of my recordings were taken from broadcast replays in the 1970s. So what does Obamacare, Richard Nixon, and old time radio have in common?

I was listening to an episode of the Jack Benny show the other night, and often with those '70s replays, whoever recorded the show let the tape run longer than the actual problem, and the station went into a top-of-the-hour news update after the show ended. The reporter read a set of headlines, mostly concerning Watergate, which was exploding. Among the breaking news, the reporter quoted experts who said the fate of the country hinged on the outcome of the scandal. We had never faced anything like it. Did the Constitution properly detail how such a situation should be handled, or would we have to create new rules to deal with the aftermath? Would Nixon resign or be impeached? You could cut the uncertainty and fear with a knife. Thirty years later, listening to this in my bedroom, it added a dimension to the Nixon scandal that shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. I can tell you the facts of the Watergate scandal and how it ended, but I could never fill the in-between real-time gaps where the country, at the height of the scandal, had no idea what would happen, or how we would carry on.

As I watch the continuing developments of Obamacare and the seemingly dismantling of the U.S.A.; listen to the nail-chewing worry of the right wing; the pessimism of my friends; my own thoughts about how we're finished; I find myself listening again and again to that news broadcast. The fear is the same.

I can't see thirty years in the future, but I know one thing: we've survived The Worst before. Like Gerald Ford said, the system works. There are other non-political elements that suggest, to me, it's a harder battle this time (that's another column) but the system indeed worked, and, in an ironic twist, Nixon lived long enough to become a respected elder statesman, and the nation mourned his passing as if Watergate had never happened (which shocked liberals from one end of the country to another). Back in 1992 my high school Republican buddies and I had a joke: "He's tanned, rested, and ready--Nixon in '92!" We were criticized by one of our older teachers of making light of a horrible period in this nation's history, and I can only imagine that thirty years from now I might say the same thing to a kid who makes an Obama joke, and he's going to wonder why I'm making such a fuss.

Some of you are going to say that I don't get it. This is the Last Stand. If we fail here, we're history. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I don't mean we should stop fighting because "it's all going to work out" or some "hopeful" garbage like that. What I mean is we need to consider history in how we approach the battle, and we need the confidence of history as we press our counterattack. Chicken Little need not be a part of the team. We have enough trouble with John Boner (ooops, I mean Boehner), John McCain, Karl Rove, and the rest of the GOP Establishment who have no interest in fighting, and are actually working against us. We may be surrounded, but at least we know where the enemy is. That narrows things down a bit.

The Day Vladimir Putin Pulled a Wyatt Earp

I don't know whether to laugh or marvel at the alleged ingenuity. I really don't think Obama and Kerry are that smart.

London, Monday, September 9th, 2013. Secretary of State John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, made an off-hand remark during a press conference that Syria could avoid a U.S. missile strike if they turned over their chemical weapons--"....every single bit....to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that.” Kerry added: “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously."

Well, before you can tell somebody that they can't do something, you are more than likely interrupted by the guy who just did it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin jumped in, saying that the Russians would be happy to collect Syria's chemical weapons, more than likely because they sold them to Syria in the first place, but that's another story. The hand-over will only work if the U.S. called off military action, he said, and the diplomats have been buzzing ever since.

There are two interpretations that, as of this writing, are making the rounds.

The first says that Kerry spoke off the cuff, and the unplanned remarks have thrown a monkey wrench into the enforcement of the "red line" thing that Obama says he never said. One article I read referred to a Congressional staffer calling this an "unmitigated clusterf***". One pictures Obama standing in front of the mirror trying various chest-puffing poses before going on TV to tell the American people that the very threat of a strike scared Assad so much that he actually wiped with his right hand before grabbing at the thread of hope offered by John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, and knows a thing or two about kicking ass.

The other interpretation says that Obama, knowing the American public is against this, and that he'll likely lose the Congressional "mother may I" vote, spoke with Putin at the G20 summit about this idea, and they agreed that John Kerry would float the boat at the London presser to see if Assad took the bait. The diplomats have been working out the details ever since, and this is how Obama solves problems: without firing a shot, unlike that idiot George W. Bush, who invaded two countries and still couldn't catch Osama bin Laden. Obama will go on TV to tell Americans that he was going to bomb, but now he won't, and isn't he the best president ever?

Like Alice in her Wonderland, I'm not sure what to believe. I know what I want to believe, that Vietnam-vet John Kerry screwed up. But I also know a thing or two about back-room politics. Study the history of the Reagan presidency and you'll find many examples of similar fake-outs and changes in direction. Congressional resistance and public opinion told Obama that he couldn't win. Nobody cares about his red line or dead Arabs. I'm sure the unknown consequences of a bombing--the promised Syrian and Iranian retaliation, the Russians pledging to support Syria--reminded him, as it reminded me, of how World War I started. The first black president didn't want to go down in history--if recorded history were to survive--as the man who began World War III because he drew a red line that he says he didn't draw.

And Vladimir Putin, riding into town like Wyatt Earp--"Hand over your guns and throw up your hands!"--is the one who really saved the day. Without his promise to take charge of the Syrian chemical weapons, John Kerry would still be sitting in London telling us how this wouldn't be possible.


BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

More Questions About Syria

I have a feeling Syria is going to dominate our discussions for the next several weeks, perhaps even months, as the government tries to decide what to do. Personally, I think Congress will vote to allow missile strikes. What that will lead to is anybody's guess, either an escalation that will involve ground troops, or, hopefully, nothing at all. But as we approach another 9/11 anniversary, I am concerned with what I read about who is funding and/or supporting the rebels.

When conservative pundits started throwing around statements that al-Qeada was behind the rebel groups, I, at first, shook it off as more right-wing paranoia. When they kept saying it, I decided it was time for a little research, because it is a troubling thought to think that we may be supporting the enemy.

Here is a Business Week article which mentions the terrorist connection in the first couple of paragraphs.

Here is a report from Breitbart.Com that mentions the same thing.

The proof is out there. We indeed may be assisting al-Qeada by bombing Syria. Why is this not being talked about more? Am I not watching the right news outlets, or is the media, in its unwavering support for Obama, ignoring these apparent facts?

We won't get any help from elected Republicans, apparently.

That blithering, good-for-nothing, geriatric gasbag John McCain, who served in Vietnam, is too busy playing video poker during the Syria hearings to bother mentioning the connection, yet he says we need to support military action. John Boner--I mean, Boehner--is for a bombing. Surprisingly, he didn't burst into tears while saying so.

So we can't count on Republicans to ask the questions; we can't count on the media, either; what are we to do?

Proponents say we need to smack down Assad because he's done something terrible; personally, I think we need to assist him in this fight. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? If al-Qeada is trying to establish a home base in Syria, with its own government, we need to stop that. They failed to establish a base in Egypt, from all accounts; we kicked them out of Iraq and Afghanistan (though Iraq is still to-be-decided), why not do whatever we can to keep them on the run? We're blowing up their leaders every chance we get; why change the strategy now?

Proponents add that if Assad uses chemical weapons in his own country, he may fire them at Israel. True enough, but, at this moment, that is mere supposition. Iran may fire nukes into Israel, too, but nobody seems upset about that idea.

Assisting Middle East leaders against a common enemy is nothing new. We helped Saddam Hussein fight Iran when it was in our interest, and later used the intelligence gained in that assistance to wipe him off the face of the earth when the time came. We aided the Afghans against the Soviets, and later bombed the daylights out of them when they let bin Laden and his gang stay rent-free.

Assad is no hero. He certainly deserves a smack, but it has to be done right. If this situation weren't so cloudy, I'd probably be writing a different column and supporting John Boner--I mean, Boehner, darn it--and John McCain in their support of Obama, God help me.

Whatever happens, it won't be pretty. If Congress blocks the play, Obama will shoot off some missiles, anyway. Because he has to. He's already gone struttin', drawing his red line, even though he claims there isn't a red line. We can't win here.


BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Republicans Want to Kill Kitty Cats

Why is it that the Republican party cannot, for some reason, let loose a candidate who doesn't make himself look like a horses's ass whenever he opens his mouth? Here's what happened:

In New York City last Thursday, a pair of kittens wandered onto subway tracks. Enjoy the cute photo. The transit authority stopped train service for about half an hour while officers rescued the kittens. Some New Yorkers, showing how the city seems to be populated by one funny-talking sourpuss after another, got upset over the delay, mostly because they missed Jeopardy! The consensus among the angry was that the kitties should have been left to die. Nice going, New York. This is why terrorists blow you up.

The most offending part of this story, however, concerns comments made by Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lhota. When asked if he would have stopped the trains to save the kitties, this Tony Soprano wannabe said, "We don't stop trains fer kittens, fuhgeddaboutit!" Then, realizing he had made an ass of himself, added that such a decision wouldn't be made by the mayor anyway, but it was too little too late. His comment ranks as one of the most asinine quotes ever uttered by a Republican, probably worse than Todd Akin's rape remarks. Is this the best the GOP can do? Does the party expect to win elections with these nimrods? Fuhbeddaboutit! The Democrats just won New York City.

On a side note, we can't help but notice that one of the kittens is black, but President Obama has yet to weigh on on the matter. Perhaps, if Obama had cats, the black cat might be his.

The rescued kittens were taken to a shelter where hopefully they will be adopted by somebody who is not a jerk, but since New York City has a population of almost nine million people, it's going to be a long wait.

One wonders what the reaction would have been had puppies wandered onto the subway tracks, but it's also moot point. As Joe Lhota might say, "Neva happen!" Dogs are smarter than cats. They know better.



BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Adventures in Syria

If there is any indication that Obama's lack of leadership has hurt the US, it is the current situation with Syria. 

He is unable to build a coalition the way Bush did. He may have had British PM David Cameron convinced action needs to be taken in the wake of Assad's chemical attacks against his enemies (ie, his own people), but Parliament told him no. This is the first time in a long time where a PM has been told no by Parliament regarding usage of the military. You can chalk this up to two reasons:

One: Bush and Iraq. Apparently the Brits are still upset that Bush fabricated intelligence from MI6 to justify action in Iraq. (Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice....um....well....you're not going to fool me again.)

Two: The Brits know Obama won't do anything except shake his fist before he says, "Oh, never mind," and returns to the golf course.

It's likely a combination of both, but with more emphasis on the second. Do they really think Obama means what he says, or can pull it off? Probably not, so why waste the time and money?

In the wake of the British vote, the haughty John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, made a speech where he praised France, our "oldest ally", for (verbally) supporting military action. Yeah, France helped us beat Britain 237 years ago, and have been surrendering ever since, but I suppose the "oldest" title still applies. I'm sure the British are stunned by the remark, and they may have even stopped laughing by the time you read this.

So, instead, Obama, as he searches the golf course for a solution, is tossing around the idea that the U.S. will go it alone on this one. 'Merica, heck yeah! Get 'er done!

Obviously this "no confidence" vote does not sit well with the administration, nor does it make us look good. There was a time, not so long ago, when this wouldn't have happened.

There is a third reason, I suppose, and it's certainly an unspoken one. 

Is it really a crisis when Arabs kill Arabs? Are we really worse off because there are now less Arabs in the world? The CIA says just over 1400 people were killed in the chemical attack. That means there are 1400 less Arabs to fly planes into buildings. The media and the politicos are trying to make a case that we need to do something, but I'm not sure the public cares. Maybe we're all still upset about Iraq.

It's a disaster all around. But Obama drew a red line, said, "Don't y'all cross this, I mean it," and now he has to follow through.

Ultimately the president is going to launch a missile off the deck of a ship, hit a camel in the butt, and declare victory. He'll go on a national speaking tour and tell us how he, alone, gave Syria the what-for just like when he killed bin Laden and the rest of the world better remember not to mess with the U.S. See how that rhymed?

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor.

Oprah Explains it All

Who are we, the little people, to argue with somebody as smart as Oprah Winfrey?

During an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN on which she promoted her new film The Butler, Oprah uttered the quote to end all quotes: "A lot of people think if they think they’re not using the n-word themselves.....and do not harbor ill will towards black people that it’s not racist."

In the fairness of context, Oprah was referring to the Trayvon Martin case, and doesn't understand how people can't see that, no matter what angle you approach it from, race was for sure a factor in the original incident and the trial that followed.

Her attitude is pure Barbara Streisand. I'm not going to rehash the whole Zimmerman situation because the truth is out there, but to suggest that, within White America, that there is an underlying current of racism is absolutely misguided. But blacks, almost like some Jews, depend on the "we are victims" storyline in order to get what they want, whatever that may be, though I think, if pressed, they couldn't articulate what they want. They have to rely on the transgressions of the past to construct some kind of future, but because they continue to soak in the past, they cannot form their future.

To suggest even at the slightest that whites are racist just because is wrong, but you can't win with people like Oprah. Back in the '50s we saw Commies under every bed; I suppose Oprah sees racists everywhere she does, and especially in Switzerland. It must be tough living in her head.

What's funny is that, at another point in the interview, Oprah, the smartest woman in America, defeats her own argument. She says her movie shows a lynching in the first scene, but ends with a black man walking into the Oval Office of the first black president.

America has come a long way, and one has to really stretch to argue otherwise. And Oprah also forgets her own journey which led her to the role in the film.

In other words, America is so racist, that we made Oprah a billionaire who talks out of her ass, and made Obama the president who spends all day covering his.


BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.