Rep. Rangel to Eric Bolling: Govt. Work Helps Minorities Because the Private Sector Is More Racist

Frances Martel, Mediaite, February 1, 2012

One of the main tenets of Eric Bolling’s show Follow the Money is that a free market economy is fairer and more successful than one administered by the government. Tonight, Rep.Charlie Rangel ventured onto the program to make the opposite case: that government jobs were in some ways more attractive, because minorities and women experienced less discrimination.

Bolling opened the floor by asking why the president promotes government jobs. The distrust of the government didn’t surprise the longtime Congressman, but he noted that “a lot of women are involved in these lower income jobs, a lot of minorities,” and later explained, “the government doesn’t have the racism and discrimination that the private sector enjoys.” This, to Rangel, means that “a lot of people could to better with the government job,” both minorities, women, and the elderly, working in places such as the post office. Bolling asked again to confirm whether he really meant the private sector had discrimination.

“There’s no doubt about it,” Rep. Rangel replied. “People don’t like to talk about it because it’s uncomfortable,” he noted, and he explained that this wasn’t a new phenomenon, as Irish and Italian immigrants had felt the same, which fed the size of local governments in urban areas. He noted that he was only positing one theory about the success of government employment, that minorities “feel better, that they’re getting a fairer shake, that it’s more fair and balanced than getting an interview in the private sector.”

{snip}

[Editor’s Note: See a full recording of the interview at the original article link below.]

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Yeah, right.  The private sector won’t hire blacks because of racism, but gobbles up immigrants to the detriment of native-born American’s economic prospects.  Rangel thinks government understands the cost-benefit of hiring, better than the private sector does? 

    There are economic positives about government as an employer.  For one thing, the civil service is only open to American citizens, so they don’t have to compete with low-wage immigrants.  But the idea that the private sector passes up ANY employee for a reason other than cost-for-work is just plain ludicrous.

    • Anonymous

      Is USPS a civil-service employer? Because around here it sure is full of FOB Asians with whom you cannot communicate in English.

      • Anonymous

        Right you are, Moderator.

      • My local post office is full of Punjabs. Do we have such a shortage of mailmen that we have to import them? 

        • My local post office is full of Asians. Conversing with these government employees is always a challenge. I’m beginning to suspect a green card now entitles the holder to a job at the post office.

          • Bon, From the Land of Babble

            Filipinos run the post offices in my part of the woods.

            Green cards are stapled to their diplomas, remember, entitling them to jobs at either the post office or DMV.

            Knowledge of English not required.

            Bon

      • Anonymous

        Wow, I feel fortunate. In my little town, even in Georgia, most of the USPS employees are white, with a required few blacks. Of course, I don’t expect that status to last much longer.

  • Anonymous

    If Blacks could do the same job as a White for less money, no Black would be unemployed.  This is why the Mexicans have largely driven out Whites from the laborer jobs: they do the same job for less money.

    People without an agenda and those who think instead of feel have no problem getting four from this simple two-plus-two problem.

  • What Rangel really means is that the government is more discriminitory then private industry is, but since that discrimination benefits women and non-whites he’s okay with that. 

  • B

    Blacks like the government jobs because the government, both state and federal, tolerate slackers and have unions to protect the inept slackers.

  • Sincerely Concerned

    Well, sure, it seems more fair with the government since they’re blatantly nothing but a jobs program filled with “make-work” positions.  I used to drive by several county government buildings on my way to my private sector job each morning.  I was always amazed at the huge size of these buildings and the very nice cars each supposedly underpaid worker drove into their guarded parking decks.  

    The vast majority of these people were females of both races, followed by black males and finally by white males.  I knew this because when I once had to pay a parking ticket and then later file some paperwork for a small suit, I almost never saw a white male on the various floors and inner offices I was required to traverse.  (“Okay, take that paper up to the 6th floor to the Clerk’s office”….”okay, now take this down to the 3rd floor and have it notarized by the blah-blah-blah”).  It annoyed me that it was apparent that racial and gender preferences may have been at work there but it infuriated me that 1000 people were hired to do the work that 50 could have done.

  • Anonymous

    I always wondered why selling stamps is a job Americans won’t do.  Latinos, Oreintals, God-Knows-whats, etc.  At the very least Government jobs should be for natural born Americans.  of course that would require a definition of natural born. 

  • Anonymous

    Rangel is such a drip.  The failing Post Office is a de-facto jobs program for minorities as it is.  He knows full well that the real draw to hiring blacks for these government monoliths is that there is no risk.  All you have to do is rake the white taxpayer for more of his cash no matter how badly the minorities screw it up.  

    Of course through consent decrees and rampant affirmative action nonsense the private sector is in the same boat.

    • The Post Office has been that way for a long time, but it really ramped up into an affirmative action hiring agency when Congressman Bill “Lazy” Clay, a black Democrat from St. Louis, was the chairman of the House Post Office Subcommittee the last few years the Democrats held the House in the early 1990s.  From what I see, he also forced the PO to implement a quota of non-readers.

  • Anonymous

    “…………the government doesn’t have the racism and discrimination that the private sector enjoys.”

    What he means is that the government has a policy of hiring unqualified blacks over whites and that private enterprise requires competence in its employees in order to stay in business. The government could fill its positions with uneducated Bantus and still have money coming in to keep things going.

    This falling economy could well be the device which will set things straight if it causes a drop in federal revenue that will require massive layoffs and the reduction and possible elimination of pension payments.

    We need to fail in order to survive. Dipping the ship below the water line is necessary to eliminate as many freeloaders as possible.

    • Anonymous

      Or in other words, the White Atlas will shrug?  That’s how I see it going down myself.  I think White Americans will eventually withdraw their consent, and that will cause the whole rotten edifice to collapse.
       
      A question for you….how do you reconcile your libertarian ideals with your beliefs on race?
       
      More specifically, the scenario for which I was unable to find an answer is: how in the rubble of the land formerly known as the United States, can the White remnants of a post-multicultural populace exclude what they call over at SBPDL “The Black Undertow” while at the same time practicing a principle of non-aggression?
       
      This is what I believe is the blind spot of libertarianism and what led me to abandon it after years of trying to envision a viable future for libertarianism in America.  Libertarian intellectuals seem to be backward-looking; they love to tell us all about how much better their ideas are than the current system, and I think they’re right, but they don’t have much to offer on just exactly how they expect such a society to blossom on the rubble of the previous racial spoils system, which will still be fresh in the minds of the survivors.  Boosters of libertarianism and socialism seem to me to have the same problem: they both assume that everyone wants the same thing.  If they did these voluntarist systems would work just fine.  But they don’t.  Many want to get by on the backs of others.
       
      Blacks and the rest of the minorities aren’t just going to suddenly find religion on non-aggression and up-by-the-bootstraps philosophy, so how do we deal with them without the use of force, implicit or explicit, knowing from past experience here and around the world that they’ll continue to do what they do best?
       
      I understand I’m making a lot of assumptions about the prism through which you view libertarianism here, so feel free to set me straight on that where necessary.  I appreciate your feedback.   

      • Anonymous

        I understand I’m making a lot of assumptions about the prism through which you view libertarianism here, so feel free to set me straight on that where necessary. I appreciate your feedback. ”

        I’m not a staunch Libertarian.  The open borders aspect of it….and other tenets…. I wholeheartedly reject, especially matters of race.

        I don’t really fit into any particular political category 100%, including conservatism and white nationalism.

        There are certain beliefs, however, like excluding blacks from white society that I’m ironclad on, but I’m not totally for absolute white purity without exception and definitely not Northern European purity, so long as other near-white factions thoroughly assimilate with no ethnic baggage that sets them apart.

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        I don’t understand.  At no time in my reading or studying about Libertarians have I ever come across anything about non-agression, especially when it comes to self-protection or defense.  

        Libertarians are some of THE strongest supporters of gun rights, even supportive of the right to own assault weapons which will be needed when the non-White riots start (ask the Koreans in LA about that).  Last summer’s riots were only a small taste of what is to come.

        If by aggression you mean US foreign policy, Libertarians are against overseas, treasury-busting, foreign wars, and rightly so. Our military should NOT be used to fight stupid, endless, aggressive wars in the Middle East or anywhere else against those who pose NO threat to us.  An immediate withdrawal is the only sane solution.  Our military should be used for defensive purposes only, especially to protect our borders.

        Notice at the moment Iran is being vilified and set up for an American invasion. 

        Republicans will “choose” a candidate who will agree to invade Iran, if Obama be reelected, the invasion will begin at the end of November.  He’s already agreed quietly that invading Iran is in the US’s “best interest.”  

        But I digress…

        Libertarians believe American aggression and meddling in the affairs of other countries beyond our own borders should be stopped immediately and permanently.  

        Where I think the weakness is in Libertarian policy is its emphasis on individualism; only by banding together and collectively fighting for White Rights will we be able to succeed.  BUT, the government believes every time we Whites try to organize, we are plotting a Fourth Reich.

         THIS is our single biggest problem: the government preventing us from organizing ourselves together politically to speak out for White Rights, as is allowed every other racial and/or ethnic group —  every single one including FOBs and illegal immigrants.

        When the riots come, and they inevitably will when the economy collapses as it was designed to do, woe be to any White who is NOT armed, ready and able to fight off the non-White hoards who have been primed and brainwashed to believe ALL of their problems and misery — including the EBT card cut off — is the fault of Whites.  

        They will come after us Whites with a vengeance, just as those who control the government, media and academia planned (to deflect their own complicity in the economic collapse).

        Bon

        • Anonymous

          Bon-

          The only fundamental premise of libertarianism is adherence to a principal of non-aggression.  Government taxation extracted through coercion backed by the implicit threat of force is aggressive, and therefore opposed by libertarians.  Ditto foreign military adventurism, compulsory public schooling….

          And apparently segregated societies.  At least this is what I gather from the LRC brand of libertarianism.  I’ve read that site quite a bit and they act as though race does not exist.  Libertarians are doomed to disappointment until they can understand that their ideas cannot work outside a homogenous society.  Common customs, religions, even appearances are the key here.  This is their blind spot.  They cannot explain how they can exclude the leech classes without using force.  Because they know they can’t, and it’s much easier to mount the moral high horse and raise your ideas up higher than everyone else’s when there’s no real-world example to point to.

          Self-defense though is the antithesis of aggression and is championed wholeheartedly by libertarians.  They are some of the staunchest 2A supporters.  But while they may pay lip service to upholding your ability to defend yourself, they make no promise to come to your aid.  Indeed, many seem to long for a world where every man’s small home and piece of land is sovereign territory.  They ignore that humans are social creatures and the seeds of government are sown in our DNA.

          You are absolutely right that when the turmoil comes the people who refuse to band together will be the first to be plucked.  You’re going to need to find at least ten people you can trust with your life, and it’s going to be easier to take their loyalty for granted if all share a racial kinship.

          • At least this is what I gather from the LRC brand of libertarianism. 
            I’ve read that site quite a bit and they act as though race does not
            exist.

            If you would have read Lew Rockwell from about 1989 to 1997, would have come away with a totally different impression.

          • Anonymous

             That’s what I gather, QD.  I discovered it around 2004-2005 and got a chance to see a little bit of what once was.  Seems they hadn’t yet purged their archives of every little shred of the past of which they seem to be ashamed.

            Still dig the economic and foreign policy commentary but they’re sorely lacking on a number of things, especially immigration.

            I wonder what happened…do you think it was just a whitewash to draw in some of the more squeamish folks?  It seems that libertarianism is becoming somewhat of a fad among my generation (I’m 29).  I call it “the new gay.”  Lot of disaffected leftists who think they’ve finally found an ideology that keeps their fathers from telling them what to do.  These folks would have ran like hell from what I saw there 6-8 years ago.

          • Not a hard riddle.  Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard went racial after Ron Paul’s 1988 Libertarian Party campaign for President because they thought they could pied piper WNs and RRs into Libertarianism.  They gave it up when it didn’t really work.  But at least the newsletter they did together, the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, which was basically the gathering place for that strategy, was where I first heard of Sam Francis:

            http://www.unz.org/Publication/RothbardRockwellReport-1994jul-00011

  • Anonymous

    “…………the government doesn’t have the racism and discrimination that the private sector enjoys.”

    What he means is that the government has a policy of hiring unqualified blacks over whites and that private enterprise requires competence in its employees in order to stay in business. The government could fill its positions with uneducated Bantus and still have money coming in to keep things going.

    This falling economy could well be the device which will set things straight if it causes a drop in federal revenue that will require massive layoffs and the reduction and possible elimination of pension payments.

    We need to fail in order to survive. Dipping the ship below the water line is necessary to eliminate as many freeloaders as possible.

  • Anonymous

    IF ANYBODY MISSED MICHAEL SAVAGE TONIGHT FIND IT ON YOUTUBE ONE OF THE BEST SHOWS EVER AT LEAST IN 6 MONTHS ANYWAY

  • Anonymous

    “…(government jobs are) more fair and balanced than an interview in the private sector”.

    Well, I must admit, the man is right – I’m positive that 99% of blacks have no answer for the question “How would you make this company better if we hired you?”.

  • What a Crock of Crap!

    The Private Sector cannot afford to carry inept people while The Government can.

    Rangel, the Number One Ethics Violator, will never admit that The Government can afford to hire and keep dumb people simply because they Collect their Money rather than earning it.

  • Hi,

    Are you really a former Liberal?  If so, how did you become Liberal?

    I’m asking because if you really were a Liberal, it’s gives me Great Hope!  I’m going to soften and tweak my approach with thoughts of you and how it is possible; it is possible to get people to see how there’s nothing wrong with siding with their Race.

  • It really speaks volumes about the intelligence of this country in that Rangel, can put forth on any topic and be listened to.

  • Up to my neck in CA.

    OK proud strong black man why do you need special hiring pratices to get a job? Why do tests need to be dumbed down so you can get a job or into college? What makes you so proud?
    Blacks need to start their own businesses, why is it the gov’mints job to hire them? White folks be racis’ if they don’t hire me. 

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    When the time comes, the USG will hit us Whites with military grade weapons.  Do I believe it will eventually come to this?  Yes.The government has all kinds of modern weaponry to throw against our rifles and shotguns, weaponry that can atomize large areas, tanks that will roll over us just as surely as they rolled over innocent Chinese in Tiananmen Square, 2,000 of them according to the International Red Cross; the USG will rain hell fire on us from above with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.Don’t think the USG won’t hesitate to turn these weapons on White US Citizens who resist the imposition of a NWO, or those considered “surplus population,” meaning White Kulaks.This is what the US Government did in Germany, in Dresden, in 1945, to a defenseless city of men, women and children, and refugees fleeing the Soviet hell state:A terror tactic used by United States Army Air Force was the creation of firestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.Remember this was carried out by the USG on defenseless women, children and refugees.Image:  Aftermath at Dresden, 1945, after USG firebombing