The brazen lies and intentional omission of the obvious

After reading this idiotic article on Real Clear Politics about how "liberals doesn't white politics" by David Paul Kuhn.  The amount of foolishness spewed by this guy is AMAZING to even somebody with a social psychology background as myself.  He attempted to brush over how although there has been some incidents of racial bias and what not, the TEA party movement isn't about race or ethnic bias.

Disregard centuries of furious debate over the role of government. Disregard the Great Recession, historic economic anxiety, this hyper-partisan era, or the comparable vitriol Bill Clinton knew. Disregard white working class skepticism of liberalism since the Great Society, when liberal policy became less concerned with them. Disregard the average man today who sees rich guys and poor guys getting the big breaks from big government. No, Rich explains, it's all about whites who want to "take our country back" from a black president.

What then shall we make of Howard Dean? Over and over, fiery Dean railed during the 2004 campaign, "It's time to take our country back!"

This is the argument that suffices for logic. Rich tosses out the most loaded charge in American life, racism, without evidence. All he has are anecdotes of angry white activists. So he stereotypes. It's like a white person who watches a black criminal on the local news and draws racist generalizations.

Clearly, some Tea Party activists are driven by racial animus. We read it in the signs. Dale Robertson, Teaparty.org founder, held up a sign last year that read, "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar." Recently, in an ugly scene near the Capitol, some Tea Party protesters reportedly hurled racist epithets at members of the Congressional Black Caucus (including civil rights hero John Lewis). But it's the generalizations that are absurd and self-defeating.

Yeah, only a fool would believe that one, Kuhn.  He conveniently forgot how some spewed the word "nigger" to Georgia Congressman John Lewis and spat on Missouri Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver on the weekend in which healthcare reform has passed.   Let's keep it real, some of those who originally wanted start the TEA party movement might have objectively wanted it to remain racially ambiguous, but let's face the facts.  First, the movement is still over 90% white and the few non-whites involved are negligible since they are as entertainment for the crowd like Jerome Lewis.  The twisted irony of how they conveniently formed after a black president was elected and a Democratic-majority of Congress occur isn't a coincidence.

White politics exists, and most politic experts such as such as myself are well-informed of this, but most of it involves the omission of the social ailments of non-whites and usually rails upon how white males are "mistreated" by the changing American society.  Hell, you and those like you should take a note from your predecessors handbook and was told to non-whites, "either get with the program or get lost".  If you can't keep up with the economy and increasingly diverse nation then you need to evolve and change so you can survive rather than using rhetoric like "taking our country back".  Notice non-whites have never said such things because they don't believe in owing this country rather just being citizens that contribute to the place as most productive members of a society.  This article posted by David Seaton on Talking Points Memo explains exactly what has been occurring best.  If you are using that type of rhetoric that lets us all know that the problem with white politics is it's about ownership and possessiveness in a patriarchal sense rather than being just a productive contributing member of society.

IT IS WHAT IT IS, AND DON'T BE MAD THAT EVERYBODY HAS CLOCKED YOU AND THOSE THAT ARE THINKING LIKE YOURSELF!