First CNN runs a piece called Could an Obama presidency hurt black Americans? By John Blake, July 22, 2008. It quotes from White Guilt, Obamania, and the Reality of Race, VDARE.com, January 02, 2007. Then Steve notices it and says

Somebody better tell David Brock at Media Matters right now, so he won’t lose any time getting his panties in a twist again over somebody daring to quote me.

Here are some responses from around the web:

Think Progress » CNN Highlights Racist Writings To Argue That An Obama Presidency Could ‘Hurt Black Americans’

49 Comments, last time I checked, and certain amount of bad language.

MSNBC - Politics - Excuse Me Sir…Do You Sell Any of That “White Guilt Repellent?”

pandagon.net Blackazoid’s Greatest Enemy

On Pandagon, an internet home for the clinically insane, they write “CNN just let a white supremacist concern troll black America.”27 comments so far, but you don’t have to scroll down to the comments to get the bad language, it’s in the article itself. 

“Concern troll” is a verb, here, and it doesn’t describe what Sailer is doing.

But so far, nothing from David Brock and George Soros at Media Matters.

The lawsuit discussed by Brenda, below, illustrates the dangers of allowing your employees to chatter away in a foreign language. The point here is not only that women were insulted by Hispanic employees, but that the employees’ conduct has resulted in a $4.5 million dollar lawsuit. That’s why many employers have instituted an English-only policy, specifically to prevent sexual harassment. As I wrote when Ruben Navarrette Jr, [Send him mail] was gloating over an EEOC case forbidding the Salvation Army from requiring English in the workplace.

[E]mployers are responsible, under another section of EEOC’s rules, the EEOC sexual and national origin harassment regulations, for their employees’ speech.

See Eugene Volokh’s article What Speech Does “Hostile Work Environment” Harassment Law Restrict? for the gory details of what speech employers are supposed to be monitoring and preventing.

Any racial slur or sexual harassment by an employee can result in fines or liability for an employer. How is the employer supposed to protect himself from this if he can’t tell what they’re saying? And of course, since Mexico has lower standards of what constitutes sexual harassment or racism than Americans do, the danger that a low-level Spanish speaking employee is saying something offensive is fairly severe.

CNN.com runs an article by John Blake, “Could an Obama Presidency Hurt  Black Americans,” which adapts quotes from my first Obama article, back on January 2, 2007 in VDARE.com:

Steve Sailer, a columnist for The American Conservative magazine, wrote last year that some whites who support Obama aren’t driven primarily by a desire for change.

They want something else Obama offers them: “White Guilt Repellent,” he wrote.

“So many whites want to be able to say, ‘I’m not one of them, those bad whites. … Hey, I voted for a black guy for president,’ ” Sailer wrote.

Sailer cited another reason why many whites want Obama as president:

“They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn’t the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama - and their problems will be over.”

It wasn’t my most sophisticated take on Obama, but here’s the context from my VDARE article, “White Guilt, Obamania, and the Reality of Race,” for the quotes in the CNN article:

The Barack Attack phenomenon is similar to the Colin Craze of 1995. Of course, General Powell had better qualifications. He’d been intimately involved in managing a successful national enterprise, the Gulf War of 1991. And he had articulated a thoughtful, cautious policy for when and how to conduct military operations, the Powell Doctrine, the wisdom of which subsequent events have only underlined.

Supporting Obama for President, like supporting Powell a decade ago, is seen by many whites as the ultimate in White Guilt Repellent.

It’s important to understand, however, that White Guilt is very different from, say, Catholic Guilt, which consists of straightforward feelings of personal moral failure.

In comparison, I don’t recall ever meeting any white person who personally felt guilty for the troubles of African-Americans. But I’ve known many whites who want to loudly blame other whites for black difficulties.

Some whites at least heap guilt upon their own ancestors, but many who publicly proclaim the reality of White Guilt aren’t averse to noting that their own forefathers arrived at Ellis Island long after slavery was over.

In other words, White Guilt is just another ploy in the Great American White Status Struggle. Minorities are merely props for asserting moral superiority over other whites.

Finding and punishing Guilty Whites has become a national obsession. One notorious current example: the framing of the Duke lacrosse players by Durham district attorney Mike Nifong (with the enthusiastic assistance of the New York Times) in the endless hunt for what Tom Wolfe called “the Great White Defendant.”

So, many whites want to be able to say, “I’m not one of them, those bad whites, like that guy on Seinfeld. Hey, I voted for a black guy for President!”

Plus, I suspect there’s an even more hidden reason many whites wish Obama is elected President: They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn’t the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama—and their problems will be over!

It’s a seductive vision. And it plays right into our national dream that race is just skin deep, that it’s all in our heads, that the solution for all racial conflict is simply thinking right thoughts, etc. etc.

“All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama—and their problems will be over!” is funnier with an exclamation point.

Somebody better tell David Brock at Media Matters right now, so he won’t lose any time getting his panties in a twist again over somebody daring to quote me.

In September 2001, I advocated overthrowing the Afghan government in punishment but not trying to transform the country as well (arguing my case in the guise of a review of “The Man Who Would Be King“). Remind me again, though, what exactly are we doing there seven years later that we’ve now got to do more of it, according to Senator Obama?

From the Washington Post:

Sen. Barack Obama, on his first and likely only overseas trip as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has remade the campaign’s foreign policy playing field, neatly sidestepping Republican charges that he has been naive and wrong on Iraq and moving to a broader, post-Iraq focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. … Chief among them, he said, are the “need to refocus attention on Afghanistan and to go after the Taliban, including putting more troops on the ground, and to put more pressure on Pakistan to deal with the safe havens of terrorists.”

Do we have any sort of offer on the table to the Taliban (e.g., hand over Osama and Mullah Omar and change your name to something else, and we’ll go home and let you locals duke it out in your time-honored manner)? Or is it our national grand strategy to be screwing around in Afghanistan until the whole place finally calms down, which will be the day after the sun explodes in 5,000,000,000 AD? (Your Lying Eyes argues the case for Afghan Ennui here.)

And do we really have any clue what to do with Pakistan? The last thing I remember was everyone in the U.S. media announcing, right after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, that the whole place was about to explode in chaos. But then it more or less didn’t, at least compared to how chaotic it normally is. So, does Obama have some special insight into how Pakistan works (perhaps from spending a couple of weeks there 25 years ago?), or is he as clueless as, apparently, everybody else in America is about the place?

The Honda Civic GX runs on compressed natural gas, which supposedly only costs about the equivalent of $1.25 per gallon of gasoline. Downsides include the tank only holds the equivalent of eight gallons of gasoline, so range is half of the gasoline version. And if you run out between the rare CNG filling stations, you’ll need to be towed to one. Plus, you only get 113 horsepower, instead of the 140 in the basic gasoline Civic. And the MSRP is a hefty $24,590, a couple of thousand more than the 110 horsepower Civic Hybrid.

My question is whether this is one of those rare cases where it pays more to get in early on a new technology. If 15 years from now, half of America is driving around in a compressed natural gas vehicle, will the current large price gap between CNG and gasoline narrow considerably due to more demand for CNG?

Need a good reason to learn Spanish, as candidate B. Hussein Obama believes we should? It can be useful to understand the insults being spoken about you.

A roulette worker at Foxwoods came up the big loser when he bet that nine women gathered around his table - including an NYPD sergeant, FBI special agent and a Long Island cop - couldn’t understand the gross comments he was making about them in Spanish.

It turned out the party also included Michelle Marigliano, a businesswoman who used to teach bilingual education and was able to comprende every disgusting word. [...]

The women’s first night went pleasantly, but on the second, Marigliano was stunned to hear two Hispanic employees spinning the roulette ball and handling chips making highly off-color remarks in Spanish.

“Great - we have a bunch of dumb broads that don’t know how to play,” one allegedly said. “That blonde in the corner believes her t-ts are going to get her places.”

They said one was a “dyke.”

And that was the tame stuff.

“These c- - -s need a big d- - - to loosen them up and then maybe these hard-asses would tip better.” [Foxwood Casino Sued over "Busty" Barbs [7/22/08]

What well mannered guys these Hispanics are! Let’s invite more Spanish-speaking piggy-men to America, definitely.

Need I reiterate that Hispanic culture, and particularly Mexican culture, is enormously sexist?