Good questions posed by the narrator, not that she'll get answers to them.
Perhaps Mr. Blount at Moonbattery is correct--one wonders what sort of place liberalists have reserved for whites--the demographic that dare not speak its name--in their genocidal liberalist utopia. We have some hints, via a July 16 speech by the HHS Secretary to the NAACP,* that suggest this place is very small indeed. Furthermore, the Administration's plans to
Perhaps a lack of diversity is more an issue of built-in tribal tendencies and a preference for a shared culture than racial bigotry. Perhaps it's an issue of the color of crime, where non-criminals just want to be safe from depredation, and not skin color. Whatever it is, mere facts won't faze the race hustlers and their racist/racialist narrative, whose game was obvious way back in Booker T. Washington's time:
"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."I wonder, where is the Constitutional right to freedom of association in all this? (Yes, I know, citing the Constitution is so retrograde these days...it's like being a Constitutionalist is the last refuge of bigoted scoundrels or something). And what's next? Are we to expect forcibly integrated houses of worship next, to inject blacks into white churches and whites into black churches and mosques, to correct the most "segregated hour" in American life?
* Why does an explicitly racialist organization like the NAACP merit a speech by a federal government official? Hmmm.