Skip to main content

For all of You Bashing Rev. Wright: Racism & Sexism Are Alive and Well

Over at Delaware Politics they have made a disturbing little heartland industry of bashing Barack Obama's Reverend Jeremiah Wright whose comments sparked a national debate with "right wing liberator cum-aggressor" and militia agitator Sean Hannity.

But for all the racists it seems to be OK since The Hon. James David Manning Ph.D. of Atlah Ministries gave Obama a tacit endorsement by way of breasts and trashy white women.

Proving once again why we need a clear seperation of church and state- "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

But as if to prove to you that it is not only fun for racists to attack African-Americans but also fun to bash Gays, the folks at North Dakota State University have proven , once again, that we have NOT always moved as far as we thought in race relations and we are at a standstill in our national discourse about people who are gays or lesbians.

This is clearly illustrated when one student noted "we like to dress up in blackface." I bet they also like to whistle dixie.

So not only do racists like to bash Presidential candidates, but they like to bash African-Americans and gays generally. And do not think it is is an isolated phenomena, not only at NDSU, but also at that bastion of tolerance Emory University. Even Clemson.

Keep that in mind next time you feel complled to yell "go Clemson Tigers...."

However nothing quite matches the Veteran Dispatch's "Son of a Luo Tribesman" post that compares Obama to a goat herder, or maybe that was one of the other racist rants.

Now I could and want to go off the deep end admonishing all the racist homophobes on the virtue of libertarian tolerance; but I know all of this racism and homophobia comes from and is simply a reflection of the down south, out-west insane square state values permeating our culture at the moment. I mean the South Will Rise Again right?

I do not know ask Fox News who "eloquently" prove that racism when it is not addressed cuts in every direction. Institutional racism is still racism no matter who it touches it degrades the fundamental dignity of the human person and lowers our political discourse.

At least Obama talked to Americans as if they were adults when it came to race.

The disappointing news is that many Americans are not adults. And it appears many cannot overcome their own delusions and psychological projections.

The good news is, I can express my outrage over this lack of tolerance without going ape-shit crazy and telling you a-holes to go back to Alabama or whatever.

But I have seen how much worse what you racist and homophobic screed people are saying. So I am going to continue to advocate tolerance and respect your first amendment right to make an ass out of yourself. And express my disapproval by noting that anytime you use race or sexuality as a political weapon, you are demeaning the principles of freedom, liberty and equality.

Why not just stamp Farakhan or Commie African Tribesman all over the man who could be your next president?

For all of you living with the delusion we live in a "color blind society" I cannot add anything here.

Comments

Freedom Fan said…
Hmm. Besides the obvious question of how someone can be a 'racist' for being appalled at a 'Christian' minister who earns a living inciting racial hatred, why would a 'libertarian' support a man with the most liberal (ie. socialist) record in the U.S. senate?

/confused

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...