Charlie Rangel said some interesting and racist things the other day in an interview about the Tea Party. It's amazing what you can get away with saying when you're black. Paula Deen gets canned for the fact she used the "N" word some 30 years ago, but Rangel and other racists can use the word "cracka" or "cracker" now with no impunity. It goes with the territory, I suppose because the reference to slavery, lynchings and other terrible treatment is easily brought to the forefront, just like the race card.

rangelIn his comments, Rangel said "The Tea Party? Defeat them the same way segregation was beaten. 'It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police'."No, it is not. Not even close, Mr. Rangel.

This type of sweeping generalization is not only untrue but self-serving. There is no evidence the Tea Party is racist. Yet individuals like Rangel will continue to beat that drum because it receives the hoped for reaction. It allows self-serving and racist blacks an opportunity to rile themselves up with hatred and animosity against whites. Never mind that blacks living today were never slaves and whites living today were never slave owners.

I posted a link to the above referenced article on my Twitter account with the introduction "Racism is ok if black..." followed by the title of the article. Rangel's use of the word "cracker" is offensive and racist and as a duly elected representative of the United States Congress, he should know better and be above that. Unfortunately, the double standard that gets Paula Deen fired for something she said years ago is the same double standard that allows people like Rangel to say what he wants to say and being black is the sole reason he gets away with it. It is what political correctness is made of in emotional virtue.

It wasn't long before posting the link to the article that I was attacked by a self-proclaimed "Progressive (socialist on some issues), activist, atheist, runner, mother, wife of one of the best people on earth" who also happened to be black. She took umbrage with my comment about the article.

As you can see, her initial post to me was filled with sarcasm.

I responded with a tweet of my own that she didn't like.

I then asked her about Paula Deen...

Then pointed out that the people who were busy doing all the lynching were Democrats, the folks who started the KKK, and the party to which she likely belongs.

The problem though is that the more roannasweet posted, the clearer her own racism became. Her tweet told me just how racist she is and it is patently clear that her very first comment to me was one of sarcasm, not a desire for "dialogue."

To this tweet, I simply told her another inconvenient truth.

I guess I should feel honored in one sense. This same individual also attacked Dennis Miller, Greg Gutfield and I guess any other white person with whom she disagrees. All I can say is that it is tragic that people like her exist to spew their venom. In fact, wading through many of her tweets simply shows that she goes out of her way to verbally attack conservatives. Doubt that she's ever been "suspended for aggressively following" though...because like the owner of Twitter, she's a leftist.

This is part of the problem with blacks who are racist today. They cannot admit that not all whites are racist. They need to hold onto the terrible past as if the people alive today are at fault. This provides them with the unending reason to hate whites. It also gives them the reason to exercise while excusing their own hatred and racism because they say it is caused by white treatment of blacks. In essence then, they have given themselves an excuse to be racist.

It doesn't matter that black tribes of Africa conquered and sold other black tribes to the slave masters from America. It doesn't matter that not all whites owned slaves. It also doesn't matter to racist blacks that blacks owned slaves. "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property...There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."

None of these facts matter to racist blacks because they are unwilling to believe it. It gets in their way and is inconvenient. It undermines their anger and rage. They don't want to know that the Democrats, who started the KKK, also lynched white people, those who were either Republican or those who seemed to want to help free the slaves. They don't want to know that some whites did their best to help free and protect slaves.

Racist blacks do not care that the fight to free the slaves took place on American soil, with white soldier fighting alongside black soldier. They need to believe that all whites are racist and their own racism (something they don't even consider to be racism) is simply a response to that white racism.

Based on information from Robert L. Zangrando's article in the book, "The Reader's Companion to American History," 1991, we learn some facts that the left (and racists) would certainly like to ignore. "Between 1882 (when reliable statistics were first collected) and 1968 (when the classic forms of lynching had disappeared), 4,743 persons died of lynching, 3,446 of them black men and women. Mississippi (539 black victims, 42 white) led this grim parade of death, followed by Georgia (492, 39), Texas (352, 141), Louisiana (335, 56), and Alabama (299, 48). From 1882 to 1901, the annual number nationally usually exceeded 100; 1892 had a record 230 deaths (161 black, 69 white). Although lynchings declined somewhat in the 20th century, there were still 97 in 1908 (89 black, 8 white), 83 in the racially troubled postwar year of 1919 (76, 7, plus some 25 race riots), 30 in 1926 (23, 7), and 28 in 1933 (24, 4)."

It is without doubt that more blacks were lynched. That is clearly and undeniably fact. However, there were whites who were also lynched, many by the same KKK that lynched blacks (and also Mexicans). Anyone who tried to help blacks or stood against the KKK was seen as a problem that needed to be eradicated.

The KKK had little problem going after anyone - black or white - who stood in their way. Because the Klan had been started by Democrats, the obvious targets included white Republicans.

What Charlie Rangel conveniently forgets (or chooses to ignore) is that the "crackers" that he had to deal with when he was growing up were Democrats. Some of them were prominent politicians, part of Congress or governors of states. But these inconvenient truths are not the things that racists like Rangel care about. Sweep it aside because it means nothing to them.

Race relations will never improve if we have people who wrongly believe all whites are part of the problem. It's people who hate who are the problem and those people come in all shapes, sizes, and ethnicity.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.