The Right Conservative News Site | Right Side News

Switch to desktop Register Login

Racism Is Not A Partisan Issue

These days, it seems whenever someone wants to silence their opponents or their detractors, the first order of business is to get them labeled, and the best (and apparently the best of the worst) is to slap the label “Racist” on with enough rhetoric glue to make it stick  -  -  if you don’t like what I’m doing you are a racist; if you don’t agree with me, you are a racist; if you don’t believe as I believe, you are a racist . . . and on and on. 

I think it interesting that the liberal leftist demagogues shout that accusation immediately so often that it is almost losing it’s power.  I note, “almost”. 

Recently, a 10 year long contract employee of a very liberal broadcast media made the mistake of voicing an opinion.  In fact, he gave voice to an opinion held by [likely] hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people around the world, not just here in the US. 

The conservative news website,, published an article on this and several readers felt inclined to comment on the article – the first one, named “Maura”, caught my attention.

"If Juan Williams deviates even slightly from the party line, he gets viciously attacked by those on the radical left." 

Racism is not a partisan issue.

 True, Maura, racism is not partisan.  This is made even more evident by the article.  It seems that the liberal leftists are just as eager to slap that label on their own almost as quickly as they slap it on their right-wing conservative opponents. 

I have a couple of questions though.  Why would anyone refer to someone who voices a fear of  people who deliberately identify themselves with murder, mayhem, terror, torture, hatred and what most of the free world agree is evil as “racism”?

Are those who salute and wear the swastika of only one race?  No, there are people of every nationality, every culture, every color, every race on earth who still promote Nazism.  These people are vile supporters of their own supremacist ideologies (which, by the way, was supported by influential muslim leaders and entire muslim countries before, during and after World War II)

Do you really believe it is racist for a normal person to see people who are identifying themselves as belonging to a certain group that promotes violence, and threatens death to any who “cross” it?  I call that common sense.   Here is an example, is it "racist" to be fearful of a person who chooses to wear a particular street gang’s identifying color garb, or an insignia of a violent motorcycle gang?   Isn't it more reasonable to believe that any individual clothed in such a manner would at the very least be supportive of the street gang or motorcycle gang whose colors or insignia they wore, if not actually an active member, that they are at the minimum attempting to emulate them, to fit in with them?   So, why then, is it unreasonable for anyone to see a person clothed in another particular way which identifies them with groups who actively seek the subjugation, violent conversion,  or death of any person not belonging to their “gang” to be fearful of what may be their intentions?  Why is that racist?

It is not racist for a person to walk down the street, look to the corner, see a group of youths in gang colors, being loud and offensive to all who pass by, to cross to the other side of the street or hope for a cop to be handy [never around when you need them].  And it is not racist of me to say that when I see that gang on the street corner I am fearful of their intentions.

This is not “racism”.  This is self preservation, self defense 101.  It is not racist to be fearful of a group of people, especially a group consisting of all colors, of all ethnic backgrounds, of all varieties who identify themselves as muslim.  You see, you cannot point to one “race” and say “There is a muslim”, you cannot point to one skin color and say “There is a muslim”, and because it is actually quite impossible to identify a muslim by “race” or skin color, it is ludicrous of those on the left to refer to those who believes there are ample reasons (like me) to dislike any single or group of muslims as a racist.  Muslim (Islam) quite simply is not any one single race.  Just as Christianity is not any one single race.  Additionally, there are Hindus, Jews, and most all other religions which have a multitude of races (skin color, ethnic, or geographic) in their midst.

If, however, you simply seek to slander or smear, in an attempt to silence or marginalize those who believe there is justification to dislike, be fearful of, or even to fight against a single muslim or a group of muslims  and are not afraid to say so out loud, then at least try to be more accurate in your slur.  (you will please note I have never referenced the entire muslim population, as there are likely good and bad in any entire body of believers of every population) 

These people are not racists, they are, at worst, bigots (at best, they are honest, truthful, plain spoken Americans exercising their 1st Amendment Rights).  Being a bigot is little more than making a personal choice to dislike, be fearful of or oppose based on personal opinion, personal beliefs, personal conclusion.  Heaven forbid any one of us choose our own life and how we want to live it as being better and wanting to keep/maintain it over having someone else’s idea of what our life should be and having them force their will upon us.  Have you considered that because liberals/democrats are so vehemently opposed to conservatives, they too could be correctly identified as bigots?

Definition of BIGOT

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group [or religious ideology]) with hatred and intolerance

— big·ot·ed\-gÉ™-tÉ™d\ adjective

— big·ot·ed·ly adverb


Bare_Naked_IslamGosh, wait a moment, I think I’m having a revelation here - - - yes!  When I read the definition of bigot, it would seem to me that the more appropriate application of THAT term would be to apply it to those adherents of Islam.  After all, “we” are not trying to force them to do anything (except perhaps to stop killing us, remember, “It isn’t Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill us”).  “We” have not slaughtered them in our streets (checking American history back since 1776 shows this to be true), burned their mosques, raped their women, hanged them for real or imagined sexual perversions according to our beliefs.  “We” have not forced entire village populations to convert to Western religions or hacked off their heads, their hands or their feet when they refused.  “We” have not rioted, burned automobiles and buildings, stabbed to death or shot their artists or hacked off the heads of their journalists.  “We” have not done any of these thing to muslims, and yet, when “we” express a justified concern that those who choose to identify themselves with a certain group of people who DO these things to us, “we” are called racist, or bigot. 

How stupid are you?  Do you believe that just because some muslims are quick to immediately take “offense” that they are justified because of all the horrors perpetrated upon THEM? Being the first to cry "I'm offended!"  or  "I'm insulted!" simply does not make it true.  Here in America, the 1st Amendment basically says they need to suck it up, because realistically, there is not one single case of a muslim being physically injured by "offensive speech", or "insulting speech" or even "hate speech".  There are, however, hundreds of reports daily of muslims violently attacking others because of some real or imagined insult.

I can do a quick internet search and find over a million (1,078,541 results in .37 seconds) of articles, first-hand accounts and legitimate news accounts of all the above mentioned horrors being committed daily by muslims in countries around the world, committed by muslims on both non-muslim and other muslims.  Yet when I search “atrocities committed against muslims” it pulls up a scant 255,000 [and many of those are identified as scams by muslims to gain attention, money or both]?  So at the very least, I am given this evidence that muslims commit these atrocities against all others (non-muslims and even other muslims who do not believe exactly as the perpetrators do) at the rate of over 4 to 1. 

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.

19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years.
The Religion of

So, if you are going to smear someone for expressing a legitimate, justified fear, likely held by thousands of Americans, fire him from his job of over 10 years, castigate him, condemn him with lynch mob mentality and then try to convince me that “he deserves what he got because he is a racist!”  then you are going to have to come up with just a bit better argument!  At the very least, you need to educate yourself and become more accurate in your slanderous labels.  For anyone to call someone a racist for simply stating the obvious truth of a matter, is beyond moronic, it is . . . . well, I think the only term foul enough to suit me is to simply say it is “typical liberal/democrat drool” and reach for the hand sanitizer.


angry_wolf_110Kelly Wolf - writes opinion under full color and protection of the 1st Amendment. Contributing author, politically incorrect conservative and independent, fiercely protective of God, Country & Constitution.


"Truth is not racist, hateful, bigoted or intolerant. Neither are those who speak the truth. However, one usually has to only look at who is shouting the accusation of such to see the truth of who is."  Kelly Wolf    



You are now being logged in using your Facebook credentials