Monday, September 25, 2006

In Latest Claim Of Racist Tendencies, Three Football Teammates Say Allen Used "N-word" In College

The claims of questionably racist actions by Sen. George Allen (R-VA) continues to grow.

This question of whether Allen had racist tendencies has been bubbling under the surface. But everything changed last month, when Allen used the word "macaca" to describe a man of Indian descent who was tracking his campaign for Democratic rival Jim Webb -- a slur that can mean "shithead."

Now, a lot of people -- Virginia voters included -- are re-examining the "good ol' boy" stories, and like a poorly made suit, the threads are unraveling rapidly. Allen has a law degree; he must realize that the evidence is mounting against him.

The latest claim of Allen's "racism" comes from three former teammates of Allen's at the University of Virginia, who told the liberal online journal Salon that Allen "repeatedly used" the "N-word" and demonstrated racist attitudes toward black Americans during the early 1970s.

"Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place,'" Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback, told Salon. "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then."

Shelton said Allen also nicknamed him the "Wizard," because he shared the name of a prominent Klansman.

Two other teammates spoke on condition of anonymity.

One agreed Allen used the "N-word" to describe black Americans. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used."

"My impression of him was that he was a racist," the other teammate said.

***

As JABBS noted last week, Allen tried to shrug off the questionably racist things on his resume to NBC's Tim Russert, suggesting those were "rebellious, anti-establishment" things he did as "a kid" -- even though such episodes occurred well after Allen turned 40.

Those include:

-- He was 25 when he opened a law office in Charlottesville, Va., in which he kept a noose -- a symbol to many people of a time when black Americans were lynched.

-- He was at least 25 when he had a confederate flag displayed in his living room.

-- He was 32 when he opposed a state holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

-- He was 41 when he issued a proclamation honoring Confederate History Month.

-- He was at least 41, and perhaps as old as 46, when he kept a picture of Confederate troops in his governor’s office.

Now comes word that Allen allegedly used the "N-word" when he was 20 or 21.

Should Virginians -- left and right -- overlook the obvious?

Certainly, conservatives don't want Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) to forget his less than one-year stint in the Ku Klux Klan when he was about 26. Byrd is now 88.

Byrd's stint in the KKK was inexcusable, one that he has lived with and says he regretted. "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. ... I can't erase what happened," Byrd told the Washington Post last year.

You don't see a lot of people on the left defending Byrd's decision to join the KKK in the 1940s. I'd bet that if a poll were taken of Democrats nationwide, they'd have wanted Byrd out of national politics long ago. It's hard to forgive such a stupid decision, even 63 years after the fact.

But while conservatives continue to crack jokes at Byrd's expense, many want to give Allen a free pass.

Virginians may not be as kind this November.

21 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hakuna Makaka libbyland. Did George Allan say nigger or nigga, because we all know its ok to say nigga in todays liberal wretched world.

And I see we are back to the confederate flag thing. I guess that flag is only a good flag when the leader of the DNC wants to wave it.

Lets all give Robert KKK Byrd a pass because as we all know he is a democrat racist and those kind of racists are the good kind.

8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Byrd later joined with other southern Democrats to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Byrd filibustered the bill for more than 14 hours, arguing that one reason it should not be passed was that it abrogated principles of federalism. During the filibuster, however, Byrd argued against the bill in several other ways. In one typical speech as the floor manager for the segregationists, Byrd made the argument that the creators of the Declaration of Independence simply “did not intend that these words should be taken literally to be true” when they wrote that “all men are created equal.”

Men and races of men differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity, and vision. One man is born blind. Another is born lame. Geniuses are not made; they are born. Between two individuals, as between two races, there are broad differences.

— Robert C. Bryd, Congressional Record—Senate, 5/1/64, 9825


He also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

You have got to love the racist party known as the Democrats. The ones that formed the KKK and blocked the doors of education so blacks couldnt go through them. And the hypocrisy is so significant.

9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting article but might be too hard for libtards to understand.

Sadly, Democrats have managed to trick a lot of black Americans into believing that the GOP is a racist party. But, in truth, the Democratic Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP. Let me explain why I say that.

To begin with, the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down.

Fast forward to 1898 in Wilmington, N.C., where Democrats murdered black Republicans so they could stage, "the nation's only recorded coup d'etat." Then, in 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime. A little later on, FDR nominated former Klansman Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Contrast that to Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who actually "sent troops" to ensure that schools in Little Rock, Ark., were desegregated and ordered the "complete desegregation of the Armed Forces." Noticing any trends?

But, that was such a long time ago, right? Things really changed in the '60s, didn't they? Yes, Americans -- particularly black Americans -- really owe Democratic President Lyndon Johnson a debt of gratitude for destroying American families and causing the number of illegitimate births to skyrocket -- by pushing entitlement programs that made it much easier to have children out of wedlock.

Remember George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" Wallace standing in the door of an Alabama schoolhouse to keep black children from being able to go to school with whites? George Wallace was a Democrat. Remember Bull Connor turning water hoses and dogs on civil rights protestors? Bull Connor was a Democrat.

But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's where the Democrats showed their mettle and Republicans were proven to be racists. Right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind affirmative action.

But, what about today? You'd think that with Democrats receiving upwards of 90% of the black vote in some cases, that there would be few, if any, prominent black Republicans while black Americans would be amongst the biggest power players in the Democratic Party. However, the opposite has often turned out to be true. Once you look past the gerrymandered districts that have to remain in place because so many liberal whites simply won't vote for black candidates (There are only five black Democrats in the House representing majority white districts), you'll see that the Republican Party has surpassed the Democrats in many areas.

Who's the only black American currently on the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas. The first black Secretary of State? Colin Powell. The first black woman ever to be a Secretary of State? Condi Rice.

Who's one of the fill-ins for the most popular conservative radio host on earth, Rush Limbaugh? Walter Williams. The most desired 2008 nominee as selected by the right side of the blogosphere in 2006? Condi Rice. Who did those same bloggers select as the most desired nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she retired? Janice Rogers Brown tied for first place.

Meanwhile, what do we see from Democrats? We see Oreo cookies being thrown at Maryland's black U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele and black Republicans being called "Uncle Toms" and compared to "Aunt Jemima."

Moreover, let's take a look at a couple of studies that actually set out to compare how racist Republicans and Democrats actually are. First off, a professor from Yale looked at voting patterns and she found that:

"...(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black. ...In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black."

It would have been interesting for them to poll black Republicans and Democrats as well, for comparison's sake, but however you slice it, there are a lot more white Democrats than white Republicans willing to defect to the other side rather than vote for a black candidate.

Then there is another study, this time from a professor at Stanford -- of how much government largesse Democrats and Republicans believe people deserved to be given after Katrina -- and, surprise, surprise: Democrats behaved in a racist fashion while Republicans didn't:

"But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority...." Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans.

This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that's friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.

That's why if you're a black American who thinks the GOP better represents your views than the Democratic Party, then it's time to join the Republican Party. Don't let the Democrats lie to you and tell you that the GOP is full of racists, especially when there are so many distinguished black Americans out there who can tell you otherwise. Look to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann -- and you'll see that the GOP judges people not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

10:07 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous, you have my utmost admiration for that outstanding (not to mention truthful) rant. I don't know where you get the energy. I find that the duplicity of the liberal mantra drains me at times. Nicely done.

The puzzling question that always pops into my mind when thinking about this is how the heck did Republicans ever allow the Democrats to undermine them on the issue of race??? How did we let them win this public relations war? I mean, with all of these historical facts on our side, I just can't figure out why our party has permitted itself to be branded with a big "R" by these libs. It's truly mind-boggling.

Again, great rant! :)

10:59 AM  
Anonymous k_jerome said...

Allen comments on use of N-word...
says it was a word he just made up. Did not know it was offensive.

11:32 AM  
Anonymous lumberjack_jeff said...

This is no suprise to his enemies, and not an issue to his supporters.

I have little faith in my fellow man.

The fact that his supporters will learn from the article that he's a jewish lawyer will have a greater negative impact.

11:32 AM  
Anonymous edwardlindy said...

repeatedly used the n word in the seventies

At that time it was still in relatively commom use on TV in the UK. Given that it wasn't us who made it a derogatory term that's hardly suprising. I'm not defending it's use - simply stating a fact.

11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dude, Allen wasn't British

11:33 AM  
Anonymous The_Casual_Observer said...

So when did he stop? It wasn't after the high school stuff, it wasn't in college, did he ever stop?

11:33 AM  
Anonymous KurtNYC said...

Most racists exhibit "racist tendencies"

Racist language, racist friends and supporters, racist attitudes ....Hmmmmmmmmmm, You don't suppose the guy is.....? Nope, those are just "tendencies." SARCASM

11:34 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

I love the way some libs actually want us to use the word "alleged" in front of the word "terrorist" when referring to the Islamo-facists who are killing our troops, yet they are so eager to accept unflattering hearsay about him as gospel.

Well, here's more hearsay from others who went to college with Allen, also from the same Salon article:

"Over the past week, Salon has interviewed 19 former teammates and college friends of Allen from the University of Virginia. In addition to the three who said Allen used the word "nigger," two others who were contacted said they remember being bothered by Allen's displaying the Confederate flag in college, but said they do not remember him acting in an overtly racist manner. Seven others said they did not know Allen well outside the football team, but do not remember Allen demonstrating any racist feelings. A separate seven teammates and friends said they knew Allen well and did not believe he held racist views. "I don't believe he was insensitive," said Paul Ryczek, who played center in Allen's year before joining the Atlanta Falcons. "He had no prejudices, biases or anything else."

In the interviews, old teammates generally spoke of him highly, as a good friend, a bright and ambitious student, and a colorful character who embraced Southern culture, listened to country music, and attracted the nickname "Neck," as in redneck. "If a black guy dropped a pass, he would say something to him," said Gerard Mullins, who played defensive back in Allen's year. "If it was a white guy, same thing. It really didn't matter where you were from, who you were, or anything." "


Enough with the cherry-picking already. It shows a definite liberal, anti-conservative bias. ;) People can come out and say anything about anybody. Unless it can be proven as fact, why even put it out there, unless it's simply to do political damage?

There are plenty of people around today who know what kind of a man Sen. Allen is. This character assassination BS is just so typical of politics. The Dems must really be afraid of this guy's chances in '08 for them to be doing this sort of "digging for dirt" research.

5:03 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

How many "facts" do you need, Trinity? I suppose you'll wait until Allen apologizes formally for everything he's "done."

I'm guessing you weren't so gracious toward President Clinton, while John Fund and Richard Mellon Scaife's money were exposing rumors that objective sources later proved were not true.

I'm guessing you weren't so gracious toward Al Gore, when the right purposely twisted his words to make him sound like a liar or an exaggerator.

I'm guessing you weren't so gracious toward John Kerry, when he was Swift Boated by a bunch of liars in 2004. Or John McCain, when he was Swift Boated by a bunch of liars and push pollers in South Carolina in 2000.

12:06 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Anonymous said Sadly, Democrats have managed to trick a lot of black Americans into believing that the GOP is a racist party. But, in truth, the Democratic Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP. Let me explain why I say that.

I enjoyed reading your post. I do not know about all of the facts that were quoted without some further research.

To begin with I never believe in racism of any type, but there is more to this story than covered.

Correctly, it was some Southern Democrats that fought hard against the equal rights of African-Americans in the 1964 Civil rights Act, but it was also influenced by the South being in support of slavery due to the needs of the farming south( not saying I validate this reason, but stating a fact).

Democrat ideas became prevalent in the south due to economic reasons to gain social benefits and give power to unions. Many repukes may not believe this, but the Civil war was fought primarely over economic reasons with slavery a small secondary reason.

FDR made an executive order 8802 forbidding discriminations in government defense and services. He established the "Fair Employment Practice Commitee". FDR's "New Deal" policy meant the promotion of social welfare, labor unions, civil rights and regulation of business. This caused some "conservastive" democrats to call themselves republicans ( were called "Dixiecrats", now "yellow dogs" or "boll weevils").The most famous was Strom Thurmond.

African-Americans switched from the Republican Party in the 1930's to the Democrat Party due to the New Deal policy, patronage offers, and the advocacy of civil rights by Eleanor Roosevelt.

During the civil rights marches Kennedy sent Federal Troops to protect the "freedom riders" in the south.

During the presidency of FDR, then Kennedy, and then Johnson, more and more of the white conservative democrats in the south switched to the republican party due to the push for civil rights and eventual passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After Johnson signed the 1964 Act he said: "We (meaning the democrat party) have lost the south for generations". He was right, the 1968 election that put Nixon in office was the first evidence of the south's switch from democrat control to republicans, primarily due to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Based upon what I know about the history and what the facts are now, the south will not elect an African-American for Senator or President in my lifetime. The House yes, but because of re-districting. So you tell us that you think the Republican dominated south will one day elect an African-American Senator or President or Governor?

12:14 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"How many "facts" do you need, Trinity?......

......I'm guessing you weren't so gracious toward John Kerry, when he was Swift Boated by a bunch of liars in 2004."


Rob, do you ever stop to wonder at the double standard that you use? Listen to yourself. You are absolutely willing to believe every word coming from these few individuals claiming that Allen is a racist, yet you dismiss out of hand what over 200 honorable Vietnam veterans, many of them recipients of Purple Hearts and Silver Stars themselves, have to say about the legitimacy of Kerry's Purple Heart awards. Why is that?


"None of Kerry's three Purple Hearts was for serious injuries. They were minor scratches, resulting in no lost duty time.
Each of these decorations is controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two cases, incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the injuries were caused by his own hand and not the result of hostile fire.
Kerry's injuries are a subject of ridicule among fellow Swiftees.
"Many took exception to the Purple Hearts awarded to Kerry," Swift Boat veteran William E. Franke, a Silver Star recipient, wrote to the authors in March. "His 'wounds' were suspect, so insignificant as to not be worthy of the award of such a medal."
Franke and about 200 others, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, came forth in May to question Kerry's deception. These veterans from Kerry's unit signed a petition calling on him to execute Standard Form 180 and allow the public complete access to his service record."


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040818-121346-4803r.htm

I'm not sure if it was you, but didn't someone just ridicule anonymous when he mentioned Kerry's bogus "rice wound" Purple Heart? Do you even know the details of how Kerry ended up with grains of rice in his butt? Hint. It didn't come from enemy fire.

You're so cavalier about calling all those other Vietnam vets "liars", yet are willing to blindly believe Kerry himself, the guy who always "unselfishly" volunteered to write up the after-action reports.

It's true. Liberals are just incredibly naive by nature. The proof of this is everywhere, which is why average Americans so greatly fear them taking back majority status.

12:44 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

other sources have gone through the swift boat book, and found contradictions, a lot of hearsay, and i'm pretty satisfied with their conclusions. part of the problem is that none of the swifties actually served on kerry's boat.

and i'm also satisfied that the military wasn't hoodwinked by Kerry.

and i'm also satisfied with the statements made by those on kerry's boat, who have backed up kerry.

1:40 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To Trinity -- I see you search the internet to find a source that publishes something derogatory toward Kerry, not hard to do in todays political climate.
My problem with this entire story was the importance made on "purple hearts" and whether they were deserved or not. If that is the most important issue for America then we should do away with campaigns and lets vote on who got the most deserved "Purple Hearts". When I served in the Army, I got a "Purple Heart" and I was never wounded. The Army/Marines give away those as freely as some women give BJ's.

The problem I had with the "swift boaters" was the amount of money that was spent to sling mud,slinging out misperceptions to repukes that very unlikely ever know anything about military life to know how freely awarding "Purple Hearts" is done, the slinging of un-true facts about Kerry so that real issues of our society could not be discusssed/debated.

As I have said before about you Trinity - if you support this type of trashy campaigning; then, IMO you do not like democracy,but would rather have a monarchy type of government. I hope you would rather debate the real issues for the success of America.

PS You have yet to answer my question about GWB NOT receiving his "wings" and nor the proof of that. The military does not give those away freely.

2:59 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I'm not sure if it was you, but didn't someone just ridicule anonymous when he mentioned Kerry's bogus "rice wound" Purple Heart? Do you even know the details of how Kerry ended up with grains of rice in his butt? Hint. It didn't come from enemy fire.

You're so cavalier about calling all those other Vietnam vets "liars", yet are willing to blindly believe Kerry himself, the guy who always "unselfishly" volunteered to write up the after-action reports.


Why do you hate the troops, Trinity?

Why is it a man who served honorably, like John Kerry did, is the object of ridicule from you? Because he disagrees with your political views? Where was George Bush during this time?

Kerry was in Vietnam. He served. He received awards, and the men in his company back him on it. But somehow you see it fit to smear that service, that it's not worthy because, what, he's a Democrat? You've got some kind of nerve.

6:44 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. very stupidly said...
"Why do you hate the troops, Trinity?"


I'll pretend I didn't see that, Dave G.

5:29 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Don't pretend. It's right there.

6:27 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Then I guess I will have to include you in that "complete and utter asshole" comment I made after all. You're just another liberal jerk.

6:07 PM  
Anonymous Dave G said...

Then I guess I will have to include you in that "complete and utter asshole" comment I made after all. You're just another liberal jerk.

But yet you would feel it fine to accuse me or someone else of hating the troops, right?

9:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares