Erick Erickson Disappoints on Honest Discussion About Race #Redstate #ErickErickson

We all know that progressives and leftists have a hair-pin trigger regarding racial questions.  Say the wrong word, express the wrong sentiment, and you face severe social ostracism and professional ruin.  Any implication that black people are different from other races, other than in skin color, results in paroxysms of outrage and moral posturing.  However, this knee-jerk reaction is not limited to left wing moonbats; many conservatives suffer from this neurological malady as well.  In my opinion, Erick Erickson of Redstate.com is one of them.

Erickson still insists that the GOP made a mistake in not removing Steve Scalise from his committee position.   This in spite of Scalise's total exoneration of false accusations of racism.  To refresh your memory, Scalise spoke at a Civic Organization many years ago, along with other speakers, on such benign topics as neighborhood watch, how to give CPR and (for Scalise) a tax bill winding through the Louisiana legislature.   Unknown to Scalise, the  hotel meeting room where he spoke was used later that day by an alleged white supremacist group, thereby infecting Scalise with racism by osmosis.  In truth, the dubious attempt to slander Scalise is a typical act of Democrat bad faith.  It's called "guilt by association," an old and unethical strategy to smear one's opponents.  Erickson, however, appears too obtuse to see through it.

Now Erickson has found a new soapbox on which to pose and posture, that of  Dave Agema, a Republican congressman from Michigan.  Dave Agema republished a post from American Renaissance, an online newsletter that I link to (see left sidebar), that has caused liberal Republicans and faux conservatives like Erickson to hyperventilate and do a convincing imitation of the Southern Poverty Law Center.   The article was unflattering to criminal blacks.  Hell, TRUTH is unflattering to criminal blacks.

The article that Agema linked to was written by a public defender, a self-described liberal Democrat.  The article is called Confessions of a Public Defender.  The author describes the behavior and attitudes of blacks that he has represented at trial, as well as those of other racial groups he has served.  His descriptions and conclusions are highly credible and believable, especially if one has read Colin Flaherty's recent book, White Girl Bleed a Lot.

Erickson is now advocating that Agema be removed from his committee post for republishing that article.  His post "The Question on Dave Agema is Not Difficult," tells why.  Ironically, the post is right above another Erickson post titled  "New York Times Endorses Thought Crimes."  Hypocritical much, Erick?

Honest discussions about race are likely to put blacks in a bad light (all those nasty crime statistics, mob violence, incarceration rates, knockout games and such).  Therefore, anyone who wants to discuss black dysfunction will be slandered from here to Hoboken.  Black people, after all, are only white people with dark skin -- a notion that I abandoned after the O.J. verdict in 1995.

To be sure, there are many black people who think and act civilly and intelligently, and are a credit to society.  However, the black underclass is a major problem for society, and those problems should be discussed openly, not suppressed for partisan political reasons.

Erickson states:

On his Facebook page Agema asserts the inferiority of blacks, that they cannot control their impulses, and that they cannot reason.

Erickson is wrong.  Agema did not assert "inferiority," and the comment on impulse control and reasoning ability is that of the public defender who is quoted, not Agema.  The public defender wrote:

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth [Emphasis added for Erickson's benefit].  As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

Possibly one of the dumbest things Erickson wrote in his hit piece is the assertion that

The Party of Lincoln should abide no person who cites Klansmen and no person who asserts that black citizens are inferior.

Such egregious moral posing and posturing is truly reprehensible.   With Republicans like Erickson, who needs Democrats?  However, let us see what Lincoln actually did say about blacks vs whites:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

And Lincoln also said this:

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.

Lincoln's comments were truly outrageous.  We should strip him of his Party credentials as well.  And give a big horse laugh to Erick Erickson, whose ignorance of history (and race) is appalling.