Right Punditry

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2

Taxpayers Are Paying For A “Chief DIVERSITY Officer” To Tell Americans How To Not Offend Him

Chief Officer Of Political Correctness For Democrat Consumed With Racism and Bigotry

John M. Robinson, the Chief Diversity Officer at the U.S. Department of State, wants America’s diplomats to know that common phrases and idioms like “holding down the fort” are, in fact, deeply racist.

Robinson, who also serves as director of the Department’s Office of Civil Rights, used his “Diversity Notes” feature in the July/August issue of the official “State Magazine” to examine the hateful roots of everyday sayings. In one recent public relations kerfuffle at Nike, Inc., he wrote, the company torpedoed a sneaker called the “Black and Tan.”  “What a wonderful celebratory gesture and appreciation for Irish culture. Not!” wrote Robinson, an adult.

Robinson notes that “Black and Tan,” –can refer to the brutal Protestant militiamen who ravaged the Irish countryside in the early 20th century

And did you know using the phrase “holding down the fort” is the linguistic equivalent of scalping a Cherokee?

“Handicap” and “rule of thumb” are two more figures of speech that Robinson, in his wisdom, has decreed offensive. The latter, Robinson says, refers to the width of a stick a man could once use to legally beat his wife”  more from the moron: here

WE have a Chief Diversity Officer at the U.S. Department of State??!  Seriously?! What blithering buffoon decided we needed to waste money on this foolishness?  Are their other less- than- chief’s running around under his tutelage, finding ways to be offended and tattle back to Robinson?

I must assume this man is a certifiable idiot.  A duck is a duck even if the duck thinks he’s king.

How can waste taxpayers money on this sort of dribble.  We’re $16 TRILLION dollars in debt!

And if I had been the President or CEO of Nike I would have replied to this foolish, racist- consumed, silly man in very firm terms, beginning with “Who do you think you are?!”

John M. Robinson, the Chief Diversity Officer at the U.S. Department of State doesn’t neeeed to be officer of “diversity”.   Primarily because we —  don’t need an Officer of Diversity!  Get the chip off your shoulder, put on your big boy pants and go find a job (if you can in the Obama depression) where taxpayers aren’t paying your salary to find non- existent ways to be permanently and perpetually OFFENDED.

About these ads

27 comments on “Taxpayers Are Paying For A “Chief DIVERSITY Officer” To Tell Americans How To Not Offend Him

  1. Zulu
    September 1, 2012

    Will “Last man standing” upset the women, or just the impotent?
    In Britain they had better rename their Septic Tanks and stop eating with Egg and Spoons, better not say “Golly” or attempt to snigger. Clergymen who refer to whipping boys could get into trouble as could anyone living in Queer Street putting up fairy lights.

    Like

  2. Zeena
    September 2, 2012

    His last name is Robinson. Moochelle’s maiden name is Robinson. I wonder if they are related. Maybe the Obama’s created a position for their family member doing stupid things and getting big bucks. I wonder how much he makes.

    Like

  3. Josh
    December 3, 2012

    This piece is riddled with errors and false assumptions. Please do your research before doling out your (misinformed) opinion. Robinson was appointed by former President George W. Bush, not President Obama, and took office during the Bush administration. Every federal department is required by law to have an Office of Civil Rights, or equivalent, which Robinson heads in addition to being the State Department’s CDO. It sounds to me like a good idea to have diplomats educated on which words and phrases are appropriate and which ones are now passé. They are in the business of being cordial to their counterparts in foreign countries in order to best serve our national interest, so it makes sense that they remain abreast of ways in which to stay on good terms with each other.

    Regardless of one’s take on the CDO position, which seems like more of a secondary role to the one that Mr. Robinson was hired by Bush to fill, the director’s role is an important one. Seeing as how current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas served in a comparable, albeit less prestigious, position at the Department of Education himself, one would think conservatives would not make an issue out of the position existing, solely because they disagreed with some of the comments of the current occupant of such a position. A man who was, in fact, appointed by a politician with whom they happen to by and large agree.

    Do your research before making such outlandish claims. And understand that the State Department’s main function is to “play nice” with people from other nations and among themselves. If there’s one place in government where political correctness should be at the forefront, it’s at the department charged with working together with other countries and diplomats to avoid unnecessary conflict cause by imprecise language and unintentional slights.

    Like

  4. RightyPunditry
    December 4, 2012

    Unfortunately for you, I realize when this foolish man was appointed to this foolish position, which doesn’t preclude the man from being a racist and idiot.
    This is a extreme waste of money, which most government is fond of, since it’s not their money they waste.
    Liberalism is demeaning to the functions of the mind — and thus waste whatever thinking capabilities it has.
    We DO NOT need, or ever have needed, a such a stupid position — to seek out word or phrases as racist? That’s pure idiocy. Do your ‘research’ and you might realize how outlandish your belief system is.

    Like

    • Josh
      December 7, 2012

      Do research on what, liberalism? I was suggesting you research the facts, not opinion. “Liberalism is demeaning to the functions of the mind,” is an opinion. Just like, let’s say, “unyielding conservatism is destructive to a liberal democracy” would be. People have different belief systems and have for millennia. That’s fine. That’s good. But what I was arguing — that one shouldn’t pin the blame on Obama for this man’s statements, as he wasn’t even appointed by the president — wasn’t an opinion. Mr. Robinson was hired by President Bush. Fact. The State Department, like every other federal agency, has an Office of Civil Rights. Fact. A similar office was once headed by a staunchly conservative sitting Supreme Court justice. Fact.

      On the opinion side, I don’t think what Mr. Robinson was saying is racist, nor do I think such government jobs are a waste of taxpayer dollars, so we part ways there. If pointing out the racist histories of words and phrases is somehow racist, I think you might be confusing the meaning of the term, “racism.” Just because someone points out white (or any other) racism from the past, doesn’t mean he inherently becomes biased against the living members of the race (or races) that once perpetrated those racist attitudes. Put simply: Just because a man believes in political correctness doesn’t make him hate a whole race. You may believe that. You may assume it. But that doesn’t make it true, and it’s certainly not fact.

      I can understand your opposition to such offices existing, and even to Mr. Robinson’s opinion. I don’t share it, but I get it. That said, the man is not being racist simply because he is pointing out historical realities. To me, neither of the two primary brands of American political ideology are outlandish. I agree with parts of some and parts of others. Like a lot of Americans, I think for myself and adhere to my own ideology. But I think, whatever you believe, you’ve got to be willing to put in the time and effort to fully research a subject before unleashing your opinion on the world. By so doing, you make for a hardier and more meaningful discourse, which then, hopefully, leads others to support the changes you seek to advance — as a conservative, and an American.

      Like

  5. Pingback: State Department Had No $$$ for Benghazi Security, Here Is What It Did Have $$$ For… | Tony Johnson

  6. Pingback: Obama KNEW ... and lied to the American people

  7. Pingback: Hillary Clinton testimony, State Department did not have enough money for security in Benghazi | CenLA Patriots

Comments are closed.

Ronald Reagan

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." Ronald Reagan
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 267 other followers

%d bloggers like this: