Sometimes Racial Voting Is Approved by the BBC

The BBC approves of voting for one’s own ethnicity: when it’s Mexicans doing it.

Border politics in Texas ahead of the mid-terms

I know I’m late in getting to this, but it’s been a long week. In any case, at the beginning of the clip (just after the intro voice over) listen to what the candidate on the stage says: “…we need workers…” Remember that for later.

Andy Gallacher is in a town where both the Democrat and Republican candidates are Mexican-American. The Democrat (the guy who says we need workers) says it’s an honor to be elected to serve, and diversity is what makes this country great. We’ve all heard that before.

Gallacher talks about how the race of candidates matters, but asks, since both candidates are of Mexican descent, how do the voters feel now? He gets a couple of Mexican-American vox pops to say that issues are more important than race. What a shock.

For what seems at first like no reason, Gallacher then speaks to a Mexican-American academic who says his research shows that, regardless of what they say beforehand, most people vote for the race in the end. The Beeboid even helpfully says, “for their own kind”. In stark contrast to all BBC reporting about white people, either in the US or UK, this is presented as a good thing. Hispanics need Hispanic representation. Never mind any non-Hispanics living in the area. If one non-white ethnic group has the majority, then it’s important for someone of that ethnicity to represent them in government.

I say it seemed at first there was no reason for Gallacher to bring in this academic to talk about racial voting because both candidates are of the same ethnicity. So why talk about whether or not the voters will vote for a Hispanic candidate? It’s a moot point.

Then we got to the part where he talks to the Republican candidate. Horrifyingly, he’s wearing a US flag pin on his lapel. He says he’s proud to be an American, while still being proud of his heritage. But for him, American comes before Mexican, as one is his cultural background and the other is his country. He also has lighter skin, no ethnic mustache, and no trace of the Mexican accent like his Democrat opponent does.

So he’s presented to the viewer after the academic who speaks of racial voting because he’s clearly a traitor to his race. He doesn’t talk about diversity, so he is no good. The subtext here is that the Mexican-American voters will and should vote for the candidate who is more proud of the Mexican part than the American part.

Remember the beginning of the clip where the Democrat said in his speech that “we need workers”? Of course he’s talking about the racial politics of illegal immigration. When he spoke of diversity to Gallacher, he was spouting the same old theme we heard a few months back on the BBC that it was racist to be against illegal immigration. Of course the qualifier “illegal” is absent now, as it always is when advocates speak. The Democrat doesn’t care about the law: he cares only about his race. When he’s talking about “diversity”, he means we should grant amnesty to people who look like him. How bringing in more of the same will lead to diversity is beyond my tiny little brain.

The Republican doesn’t talk that way. Or at least isn’t encouraged to by the Beeboid.

The thing is, there’s racial politics everywhere in the US. Right here in New York, former mayor (African-American) David Dinkins endorsed the non-white candidate for State Senate in the Democrat primary in my neighborhood. Here’s his reason:

I grew up in Harlem where we taught that New York City is a melting pot. Well I don’t agree with that. I have always said that we are a gorgeous mosaic. We have as many separate ethnic identities as the United Nations. That’s why we have a parade about every hour and a half. But it is important, it is so very important, particularly for the people of this district who vote on Tuesday to recognize how important it is to understand that the city is changing. Most people in the city are going to look more like us than others and that’s just a fact. It is not a bad thing. It is frankly a good thing.

Imagine if Giuliani had said the equivalent. The BBC would be all over it. Not only that, but Espaillat’s opponent was a Jew. You’ll never hear from the BBC that anti-Semitism is common in the African-American and Hispanic communities. And NYC isn’t a border town, so it’s inaccurate to portray the racial angle in that Texas town as being due to its proximity to the border. The fact that they’re Mexicans is obviously connected to the border, but not the racial angle in the abstract.

But the BBC approves of racism when it’s not white people doing it, so never mind.

LLAMAS HEART OBAMA

Backing up DB’s revelations about Matt Danzico – one of the BBC’s new recruits to its heavily biased Washington outfit -, which showed that he’s a strong Democrat supporter who campaigned for Obama in 2008, here’s some footage which might suggest why the BBC’s coverage of American politics doesn’t seem entirely impartial (despite Helen Boaden).

Anti Obama Violence Erupting in Kentucky?

Pelosi might be right about those anti Obama wingnuts, according to the BBC

US police are investigating the death of a man who was found hanged from a tree in rural Kentucky with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest.
Bill Sparkman, 51, had been going door-to-door in Clay County collecting census data.
The FBI is investigating whether Mr Sparkman was victim of anti-government sentiment.

Earlier this morning it was on the front page but has now been moved to “Americas”…maybe because of this?

But the motivation behind the killing — if indeed it was a killing — is not clear at this point.
A spokesman for the Kentucky police told TPMmuckraker last night that police were still looking into death, that an autopsy has been scheduled, and no cause of death has yet been listed.

And notice that the BBC “forgot” this from ABC

Investigators are saying little about the crime, but some people wonder if his death in the remote part of southeastern Kentucky known for its meth labs and hidden marijuana fields had less to do with his job than simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And another strange factoid emerges, courtesy of TPM

Late Update: An FBI spokesman, ratcheting back speculation that Sparkman’s death was an act of anti-government violence, tells us that he was found with his feet on the ground, not hanging from a tree as previously reported.

mmmm…that little titbit about anti-government sentiment – was it so tempting that the BBC should couldn’t hold back? And would they have even bothered if it had happened before January 2009?

Just asking…….

They did it!

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the result is historic. As for the BBC’s coverage, well thanks for your comments. Iain Dale was also unimpressed, and as evidence of the Beeb’s standing at home and abroad, here’s an American perspective:

The real fun network of the night was BBC America, which picked up the BBC feed being aired back in England. The coverage played like a good-natured “Idiot’s Guide to the American Election,” with references to such states as “North Hampshire.”

After all the hard work, though, it’s only right that the last word goes to the Beeb. And who better than John Simpson (a troll challenge here: can anyone make a convincing case Simpson might have voted Republican?) :

The United States has seen the biggest transformation in its standing in the world since the election of John Fitzgerald Kennedy in November 1960.

This is a country which has habitually, sometimes irritatingly, regarded itself as young and vibrant, the envy of the world. Often this is merely hype. But there are times when it is entirely true.

With Barack Obama’s victory, one of these moments has arrived

UPDATE: Iain Dale fleshes out his criticism of the Beeb’s coverage here: references to John Bolton’s outburst, “car crash TV”, and a note that this should be David Dimbleby’s last election make it well worth reading.

Quiz Time USA Speical

Quiz time! USA Special

Moving on from Brand and Ross, it’s time to get the crystal balls out and predict who will be the mystery guest on tomorrow’s Question Time. At the moment it’s looking dangerously balanced: Elizabeth Edwards, a senior adviser on health care to the Barack Obama campaign; Simon (America has to choose: Obama or certain doom) Schama; Clarence Page (another Democrat); and Cheri Jacobus, a Republican political consultant and strategist based in Washington D.C. So only three to one against the Republicans at the moment! So who will be the fifth? And you can’t have Mchael Moore – I’m taking him. A pat on the back and a ‘jolly well done’ to anyone who gets it right.

UPDATE: It’s just occured to me that this might be unfair: the Beeb could, of course, be late announcing the fifth guest because they want to balance it but they don’t actually know any Republicans, in which case feel free to help them out with your suggestions….

UPDATE 2: They found one! After thinking long and hard and after much scouring of the Daily Kos and Huffington Post they found a whole bunch of Republicans working for that other guy in the Presidential race. Now all they had to do was pick one… “Look! Here’s one that’s related to Nixon – everyone knows he was a bad’n. He’s even got ‘Nixon’ in his name. Perfect!” And so the fifth panellist is… Christopher Nixon Cox, executive director of Senator McCain’s presidential campaign in New York. The show’s taking place tonight. In Washington.

Phew, that’s a relief:

“McCain team ‘cynical, not racist'”

Says who? Says Obama. And the BBC considers this news? That the chosen one would pardon his nasty opponent from the unforgivable sin by substituting a lesser criticism. Sorry BBC, this is not balance- it’s reverence for your man. It’s bias.

They go on to report “The latest row began when the McCain campaign claimed that Mr Obama had “played the race card” by warning that the Republican would try to scare voters about how Mr Obama looked unlike “all those other presidents on the dollar bills” – all white men.”

Notice how the row began- not with the Obama accusation but… McCain, of course.

BROWN NOSING IT

. Did anyone else hear the simpering publicity that Gordon Brown’s visit to the USA is being afforded by Al-Beeb? I was amused to hear the BBC parrot that Brown will invoke “memories of JFK” when he stands beside Edward Kennedy today and urges the US to embrace the global world. A few points here; 1/ Given the size of Teddy Kennedy, I’m surprised that there is the space to stand beside him! and 2/ How patronising is Brown’s “advice” to the current Presidency and those MILLIONS who voted for George Bush? The BBC is pulling out all the stops to pretend that Brown is making any impact in the States when it is obvious that it is the visit by the Pope (an elected leader, unlike Brown or Bush, natch) which is creating the real headlines.

SHAME ON YOU.

The BBC’s relentless hostility to the United States is evidenced once again in the faux headline that “US Shamed by Mandela terror link.” This concerns the news that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has asked for “embarrassing” travel restrictions on Nelson Mandela and South African leaders to be lifted. A bill has been introduced in the US Congress to remove from databases any reference to South Africa’s governing party and its leaders as terrorists. Now I realise that Mandela is the patron saint of leftworld and the ANC are immune to criticism in BBC land but the fact is that Mandela DID plan terrorist acts and there are plenty within the communist ANC who relished carrying out other terrorist atrocities. The United States has NO “shame” as the BBC puts it in trying to exclude terrorists, although of course here in the UK the opposite situation prevails where we cannot exclude terrorists as the Court of Appeal made clear the other day.

Bushwhacked.

Sometimes I read a report and wonder why it is there. Nothing existential, just the non-sensical logic behind it. This morning the BBC headline runs ” Bush ‘is avoiding Iraq decisions'”- top billing for this story.

Let’s leave alone the fact that this headline immediately promotes a subjective, politicised point. Let’s question its very newsworthiness. Why is it there? Perhaps, I thought, because yesterday Bush was hailing Iraq progress and (as the BBC put it) freezing any “pull out” from Iraq. That’s newsworthy, really.

Yet what about today’s headline? Ah, well that’s the Democrat response. We’ve moved from reporting a decision arising from concrete events to the political strategy of one US party. Not cricket, BBC.

You can often tell the BBC position because they reiterate a certain rhetorical line in an article, underlining a particular soundbyte.

In this case, we first of all get the warm-up line from the Beeb, “But his opponents say the people want answers from this president, now.” (which certainly has a rhetorical ring to it inappropriate to a factual news item), and then the main event from Nancy Pelosi:


“”The president has taken us into a failed war, he’s taken us deeply into debt and that debt is taking us into recession,” she said. “We need some answers from the president.””

It’s like the run-up before the penalty kick.

What’s really funny though is the fact that the BBC headlines a story Bush “avoiding Iraq decisions”, when in fact he has just decided something- which was yesterday’s news. Today’s news is that he’s declined to follow-through with a decision that the Democrats wanted and want to intensify and speed up. This is rather more nuanced and requires the BBC’s special news skills (arising from its unique funding) to bring to our attention.

THE SEPTEMBER 1OTH PEOPLE.

I caught the BBC Radio 4 News headlines at 6.30am this morning and noticed that the “Save The Guantanamo Six” campaign has now kicked off, following the news that the US intends to try six men, including alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with plotting the events that led to the mass terror attack on 9/11. The BBC are foaming at the mouth about this story because it combines several of their innate leftist prejudices. The Bush regime (bad) is going to take Guantanamo inmates (innocent, in the wrong place at the wrong time) to a military commission (always bad) and if they are convictedthey could face – gasp – the death penalty (double bad) The first comment came from the UN Rapportuer on torture Manfred Nowak(Remember, Gitmo bad) who was given free reign to imply that the poor Jihadi might not get a fair trial. Indeed I was entertained to hear the BBC reporter explain that he had “broken the news” to Manfred (who was on a ski-ing holiday, natch) that the Gitmo inmates could now face the death penalty. How interesting that the BBC thinks that the first person to speak to after this breaking news is a representative of the morally bankrupt UN which has consistently opposed the war on terror. Here’s a hint for the BBC – why not get in contact with those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and who crave that justice be done? The BBC has been a constant echo-chamber for the anti-war lobby who knee-jerk that Guantanamo be closed and that if there is evidence against those interned there, then bring them to trial. Now that the US is doing just that, they are even more upset because it’s the wrong sort of trial and as all good Beeboids know, there is no justice in the USA, right? (OJ apart) I look forward to the trial and conviction of these alleged Jihadi and hope that they will made their fate – and the death penalty seems about right to me. The world is divided into September 10th and September 11th people – the BBC remains resolutely stuck in September 10th 2001.