******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Counting Non-White People At Palin Book Signings

Does playing the race card never grow old? Apparently not when Palin Derangement Syndrome is at work.

At Lawyers, Guns and Money blog, Scott Eric Kaufman is counting non-white people at Sarah Palin book signings, with smoking gun photos such as the photo (right) of white hands at the signing table.

And all because Darleen Click [is that really her name?] at Protein Wisdom, in responding to some comments to her post about PDS, called out those who harp on the race of people at Palin rallies. Proving that no comment at a post should be left unturned, Kaufman writes:
Time to play "Count the Non-White People"! [followed by 12 linked crowd photos]

In all those photographs, there is one non-white person who can be positively identified as having come of their own accord. To Click, pointing out that Palin's own handlers consider her appeal limited to white people makes me a racist. Over in the increasingly diverse place known as the United States, this is why people like Click should hunker down for a long run of political disappointment.

Being meticulous, Kaufman notes that the non-white person in one photo [*] was just a "security guard." In another photo showing three Asian people, Kaufman postulates "but only one identifiably of her own volition." Yes, because any non-white person who attended a Palin book signing must be there involuntarily, apparently.

I wonder if Kaufman also is counting all the non-white hosts at MSNBC. Maybe that explains why MSNBC is failing.

I would have included this in my Saturday Night Card Game series, but I just couldn't wait.

But maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe Kaufman actually was counting white people. Would that make it better?

*Note: Some of the links have gone dead because SEK's blog has switched url address.

Related Posts:
How Do They Think This Stuff Up?
Caroline Glick Not Interested in Israel's Survival?
Another Warning on Turkey's Islamist Slide

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. Wow, just because they are jealous that Palin's book is doing so well, they have to find a way to try and knock it down. They could have used something more creative than the race card

  2. Someone, quick!, remind me what percentage of "people of color" voted for our current President? Let's see, now, if 98% of all American citizens, otherwise known as "non-" "people of color", whether "white", hispanic, Oriental, Asian/near or far East, etc., etc., and so forth, had voted for a "non-" "person of color" running for President. PMSNBC and its mostly lily white cast of characters would howl to the third atmosphere that white folk or, to be more racially specific, "non-people of color", are racists with burning crosses and white hoodies just over yon horizon.

    But ... when 98% of "people of color" vote for a candidate who is half a "person of color", that's something else altogether, eh?

    All of which twaddling and wittering on leads me to this simple commentary regarding the blithering malcontents who count color of hands at book signings to construct whatever occupies their collective small, narrow minds: FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

  3. Speaking to the Leftists: Really, enough already! Every time I hear raaaaaacist it makes me just [yawn].

  4. I was thinking along the lines of Deb B. Isn't John McCain is president now because 95% of white Americans voted for him?

    If we're going to have Holder's frank discussion of race, don't we have to ask why it's OK for people of color to vote almost exclusively for non-white candidates?

  5. If Kaufman wants to talk about showing up on one's own "volition,", let's talk about how the appearances of narrow special interest groups at Democrat fundraisers are regularly bought by promised entitlements and outright bribes from community organizations like ACORN.

    Democrats are notorious for paying minorities and poor people to show up at rallies. Give a poor or homeless person $20 bucks and he'll protest ice cream for heaven's sake!

    Regardless of their skin color or nationality, the people who turn out for Sarah Palin are genuine, not bought and paid for.

  6. Look at the diversity drawn to this Jackson and Sharpton rally:


  7. It should be pointed out that SEKaufman has choosen to teach at a college (UCI) that has a student body of only 2% African American. And he lives in a city (Corona) with 6% African American and a median income over $98,000.

    Of course that is his choice, even as he dances close to libeling me as a racist with this assertion: "advocates creating and maintaining structural inequalities that disproportionately affect people who just happen to not be white."

    It can be assumed that since the only "structure" I was advocating in my post was a smaller government with greater individual freedom ala the US Constitution, one can draw their own conclusions about SEK's true priorities and tactics.

    Oh, btw, yes, "Click" is my real, birth name; and unlike (I suspect) SEK, my ancestors were brought to the New World in 1697 as slaves.

  8. Over in the increasingly diverse place known as the United States

    I don't know if the left understands this but the demographics of the USA are still 70-75% white, 10-12% Black 12-15% Latino and the rest is asian,native american, eskimo etc.

    So in a line made up of 10 diverse americans you would have 7 or 8 white people 1 or 2 minorities (3 at most).

    This is one of those big lies of the MSM. They say that America is a very diverse multicultural population based on "projected demographics" continuing the trend it had during the massive immigration period of economic expansion (ask the irish if those trends continue forever). The MSM had to take this trend out to the year 2050 just to get the population 50/50 White vs minority. and even in 2050 the largest population will be white. In 2050 if the present trends continue (which is very unlikely due to economic issues) it would take ALL of the minority races in the USA to equal the white population. this is just fact.

    So ANY nonracial event would have a majority of white people present.

  9. @Darleen - there's an electrician in Ithaca whose last name is "Sparks"; neither of you had any free will in your chosen pursuits.

  10. Great post Deb, you stole my thunder! :)

  11. I am more than a little confused by the canard that black people voted for Obama because they are racist. When the Republicans were the party of Reconstruction, black people voted Republican. That commitment ran out in the 1880s, but during the high tide of lynching, black voters still turned to the Republicans because they couldn't expect help from the Dixicrats. That changed with FDR and subsequent Democratic presidents who (moreso than Republican counterparts) championed desegragation and protected black voting rights. Black people have voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party (since FDR) because they believe it is in their economic and political interest to do so.

    Our country has had a recurring difficulty ensuring black folks in this land get to vote. You'd think a Declaration making all men equal would have done it, or the extension of the franchise to non-propertyholding men in the Jacksonian era, or the 15th amendment guaranteeing the freedmen voting rights. So, why exactly would blacks' right to vote have to be re-established with the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Easy. Because it's still in some folks' interests to portray black people as illegitimate voters. It's a long story and this is just another wrinkle. Now it's "they're racist because they vote for other black candidates." First, I have already shown that black voters have shown no difficulty voting for white candidates of either party when those parties have spoken to their interests. That makes them no different from anyone else in the country.

    Second, even if they only voted for Obama because he was black, I think black people have a looooong way to go to catch up with two centuries of being barred from voting and running for office. What, do some of you think our forefathers were so egalitarian and open-minded that they would've voted for a Thomas Jefferson if he were black? No black candidate has ever had massive support from white conservatives... now why is that?