...that Donald Trump was right.
If you’ve been living under a rock, you might not have heard about Donald Trump's “racist” (more on that in a moment) comment saying we should stop allowing Mohammedans into America “until our Representatives figure out what’s going on.” The reaction was predictable, and pathetic.
Most Republicans couldn’t distance themselves fast enough. Democrats pointed with glee at the “racist” comments and said it “disqualified” Trump from being President (this from the party of the KKK, the Black Panther party, and the Westboro Baptist Church, among others). Everyone reacted as if there was nothing of substance said.
Yes, Trump is circus clown. Yes, he’s a carnival barker. In many ways that’s what makes him so appealing to many. However, he’s not actually stupid. So let’s take a serious look at the facts behind the carnival barking.
continue...
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Friday, February 8, 2013
Gun Control Is Racist
"Why has no enterprising racist made the point that requiring ID and a background check to buy a gun will prevent poor people of color, particularly, illegal immigrants, from accessing their Second Amendment rights?
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at February 08, 2013 11:27 AM (kXoT0)"
That was a comment today at the AoSHQ. I liked it so much I'm stealing it. (Wait, I already gave attribution? Crap.)
The point of the comment (for my willfully ignorant readers) is to link the idea of Voter Id (which, for some reason is racist and will prevent Blacks or Hispanics from voting), to the concept of gun control. It's absolutely right in all it's particulars, and it sums up the idea nicely. I'd like to expand on it, though- because that's what I do.
The same people who would have us believe that presenting a valid, photographic identification card would "disenfranchise" the poor and minorities would have us overlook the fact that photo Id and a background check- not to mention permits (which are sometimes quite expensive) and other requirements- would have at least the same effect on people exercising their second amendment rights. Even more so, because of those previously mentioned permits.
See? Photo Id for Voting = Racist. Photo Id for 2nd Amendment = "Common Sense Controls."
But the 2nd Amendment is a right- conferred by Nature (or Nature's God) and merely protected by the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it strictly prohibits the Government from infringing on that Right.
On the other hand, voting is a privilege. Unlike the Right to Self Defense/Defense Against Tyranny (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms), voting doesn't even exist without specific government action. Voting is unique to democratic and republican forms of government. An absolute monarchy, for instance, does not have voting. That does not mean an absolute monarchy could not protect the Natural Rights of its Citizens/Subjects (such a situation is absurdly unlikely, but not inherently impossible).
So why is it that the one they don't have a problem limiting is the one that is a Natural Right?
Further, I should point out that Gun Control really is racist. It was first implemented in the United States as a way to keep newly freed slaves from obtaining and using guns. When Hitler came to power in Germany, one of the first things he did was to institute very strict gun-controls (mostly used to disarm the Jews).
It is simply true that any extra burden on gun ownership really will (as Liberals claim would happen with voter ID) have a disproportionate impact on the poor and minorities. Add into that the fact that the poor and minorities are at least slightly more likely to live in neighborhoods with high crime rates, and it's even worse. But these supposed "Civil Rights" crusaders do not acknowlege the damage they are doing. Whether unknowing (which seems unlikely at this late date) or intentional, they really are attempting to implement laws which will deprive the poor and minorities of one of the Rights.
Why do Liberals hate brown people?
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Wily Wrepublican Wench at February 08, 2013 11:27 AM (kXoT0)"
That was a comment today at the AoSHQ. I liked it so much I'm stealing it. (Wait, I already gave attribution? Crap.)
The point of the comment (for my willfully ignorant readers) is to link the idea of Voter Id (which, for some reason is racist and will prevent Blacks or Hispanics from voting), to the concept of gun control. It's absolutely right in all it's particulars, and it sums up the idea nicely. I'd like to expand on it, though- because that's what I do.
The same people who would have us believe that presenting a valid, photographic identification card would "disenfranchise" the poor and minorities would have us overlook the fact that photo Id and a background check- not to mention permits (which are sometimes quite expensive) and other requirements- would have at least the same effect on people exercising their second amendment rights. Even more so, because of those previously mentioned permits.
See? Photo Id for Voting = Racist. Photo Id for 2nd Amendment = "Common Sense Controls."
But the 2nd Amendment is a right- conferred by Nature (or Nature's God) and merely protected by the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it strictly prohibits the Government from infringing on that Right.
On the other hand, voting is a privilege. Unlike the Right to Self Defense/Defense Against Tyranny (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms), voting doesn't even exist without specific government action. Voting is unique to democratic and republican forms of government. An absolute monarchy, for instance, does not have voting. That does not mean an absolute monarchy could not protect the Natural Rights of its Citizens/Subjects (such a situation is absurdly unlikely, but not inherently impossible).
So why is it that the one they don't have a problem limiting is the one that is a Natural Right?
Further, I should point out that Gun Control really is racist. It was first implemented in the United States as a way to keep newly freed slaves from obtaining and using guns. When Hitler came to power in Germany, one of the first things he did was to institute very strict gun-controls (mostly used to disarm the Jews).
It is simply true that any extra burden on gun ownership really will (as Liberals claim would happen with voter ID) have a disproportionate impact on the poor and minorities. Add into that the fact that the poor and minorities are at least slightly more likely to live in neighborhoods with high crime rates, and it's even worse. But these supposed "Civil Rights" crusaders do not acknowlege the damage they are doing. Whether unknowing (which seems unlikely at this late date) or intentional, they really are attempting to implement laws which will deprive the poor and minorities of one of the Rights.
Why do Liberals hate brown people?
Monday, December 3, 2012
Racist Eugenicist Margaret Sanger to Rachel Carson: "Well Done."
Update: This is what happens when I don't get enough caffeine. Yes, Rachel Carson, not Corrie. Corrected below. *sigh*
From the Competitive Enterprise Institute comes this piece, detailing how Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was basically completely wrong. Check out their piece (video and PDF).
I want to make a different point though, going back to the "perfectibility of man" premise so many Liberals accept. Rachel Carson wrote a book which basically called anyone who used DDT mass murderers. She claimed there were side effects of DDT which were harmful to humans (beyond those in any chemical- including natural ones- there aren't), and then said they made bird eggs super-duper fragile, so that birds weren't hatching. Now, there has never actually been any scientifically rigorous proof of that, either, but let's grant it for the moment.
Is she saying that birds are more important than people? I'm sure she would tell you otherwise. See, she believes in the perfectibility of man. One consequence of the concept of the perfectibility of man is the resulting concept of the perfectibility of man's designs. See, if man is perfectible, so is anything to which he sets his hand. So any negative consequences of anything humans do are completely unacceptable. Anything which has any negative side effects at all must be banned. Those who use it anyway must be shunned.
However high-minded this philosophy may think it is, it fails to apply its own test to itself. For, if man is perfectible, and therefore anything man does should be perfect, then any negative consequences are unacceptable, and the enterprise must be abandoned. When we apply that rubric to the idea of the perfectibility of man, however, we find the concept of the perfectibility of man also has negative consequences, and so must be abandoned.
The concept of the perfectibility of man required that Rachel Carson and her compatriots oppose DDT and other pesticides. As a result, more millions of African babies have died than those ever aborted by noted Racist Eugenicist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood ever has. Those deaths are negative consequences, so, by their own rules, the opposition to DDT must be abandoned.
Of course, there's one other option. Maybe Rachel Carson just hates black people.
From the Competitive Enterprise Institute comes this piece, detailing how Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was basically completely wrong. Check out their piece (video and PDF).
I want to make a different point though, going back to the "perfectibility of man" premise so many Liberals accept. Rachel Carson wrote a book which basically called anyone who used DDT mass murderers. She claimed there were side effects of DDT which were harmful to humans (beyond those in any chemical- including natural ones- there aren't), and then said they made bird eggs super-duper fragile, so that birds weren't hatching. Now, there has never actually been any scientifically rigorous proof of that, either, but let's grant it for the moment.
Is she saying that birds are more important than people? I'm sure she would tell you otherwise. See, she believes in the perfectibility of man. One consequence of the concept of the perfectibility of man is the resulting concept of the perfectibility of man's designs. See, if man is perfectible, so is anything to which he sets his hand. So any negative consequences of anything humans do are completely unacceptable. Anything which has any negative side effects at all must be banned. Those who use it anyway must be shunned.
However high-minded this philosophy may think it is, it fails to apply its own test to itself. For, if man is perfectible, and therefore anything man does should be perfect, then any negative consequences are unacceptable, and the enterprise must be abandoned. When we apply that rubric to the idea of the perfectibility of man, however, we find the concept of the perfectibility of man also has negative consequences, and so must be abandoned.
The concept of the perfectibility of man required that Rachel Carson and her compatriots oppose DDT and other pesticides. As a result, more millions of African babies have died than those ever aborted by noted Racist Eugenicist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood ever has. Those deaths are negative consequences, so, by their own rules, the opposition to DDT must be abandoned.
Of course, there's one other option. Maybe Rachel Carson just hates black people.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Who Knew? Working Is Racist
Yet another racist "dog whistle" that apparently only Democrats can hear.
On this morning's Morning Joe (a show I would avoid like the plague even if I got MSNBC), Chris Matthews went at it with GOP Chairman Reince Preibus. From the MSNBC website, here's the most salient portion:
Okay... so what I'm getting here is:
1) It's okay for Barack Obama to be negative because Romney has been, too. Which, I guess, it really is, but it's Obama who has been denying that he's running a negative campaign. You'll notice Mr. Matthews doesn't even try to defend that stance.
2) A joke which mentions Barack Obama's... nuanced relationship with his birth certificate is somehow racist and evil- as opposed to a one-liner to be dismissed and forgotten. You'd think the Democrats were a little sensitive about that issue. I wonder if it's because Obama himself claimed to be a citizen of Indonesia (or was it Kenya? It's hard to keep straight with the SCOAMT) for something like 14 years.
3) Working is racist. Apparently, only white people are capable of work, so requiring that welfare recipients work (or prove they're trying to get work) has a "disparate impact" on minorities. Yes, Blacks and Hispanics, the Democrats believe you're too shiftless, lazy, and inept to be expected to work. Republicans believe that you are quite capable, and that requiring you to do so is a good way to prevent the "hand up" that welfare is supposed to be from becoming a "hand out" which will only increase your dependency on the Government.
4) Barack Hussein Obama, who has gone by at least two names we know of (his current, and Barry Soetoro) is not capable of changing his name. So is it his black half that can't change that, or his white half?
As light as I'm making of this imbecilic comment, it's important to understand: the Democrats really believe this. They really believe that Blacks and Hispanics can only function with government help, that Blacks and Hispanics really are shiftless, lazy, and incompetent. Republicans believe they're people just like Whites and Asians, and can succeed at anything if they'll put in the time, work, and effort.
On this morning's Morning Joe (a show I would avoid like the plague even if I got MSNBC), Chris Matthews went at it with GOP Chairman Reince Preibus. From the MSNBC website, here's the most salient portion:
I have to call you on this Mr. Chairman. You’ve been suggesting that somehow Obama has been running a negative campaign and your guy is running a positive campaign, but that’s not accurate. They’ve both been negative. That cheap shot about 'I don’t have a problem with my birth certificate [from Romney] was awful. It is an embarrassment to your party to play that card. This part about getting rid of the work requirement for welfare is dishonest. You are playing that ethnic card there.
You can play your games and giggle about it, but the fact is your side is playing that card. When you start talking about work requirements, you know what game you’re playing, and everybody knows what game you’re playing. It’s the race card. Yeah, if your name is Romney, yeah you were well-born, you went to prep school. Yeah, brag about it. Yeah, this guy [Obama] has an African name and he has to live with it.
Okay... so what I'm getting here is:
1) It's okay for Barack Obama to be negative because Romney has been, too. Which, I guess, it really is, but it's Obama who has been denying that he's running a negative campaign. You'll notice Mr. Matthews doesn't even try to defend that stance.
2) A joke which mentions Barack Obama's... nuanced relationship with his birth certificate is somehow racist and evil- as opposed to a one-liner to be dismissed and forgotten. You'd think the Democrats were a little sensitive about that issue. I wonder if it's because Obama himself claimed to be a citizen of Indonesia (or was it Kenya? It's hard to keep straight with the SCOAMT) for something like 14 years.
3) Working is racist. Apparently, only white people are capable of work, so requiring that welfare recipients work (or prove they're trying to get work) has a "disparate impact" on minorities. Yes, Blacks and Hispanics, the Democrats believe you're too shiftless, lazy, and inept to be expected to work. Republicans believe that you are quite capable, and that requiring you to do so is a good way to prevent the "hand up" that welfare is supposed to be from becoming a "hand out" which will only increase your dependency on the Government.
4) Barack Hussein Obama, who has gone by at least two names we know of (his current, and Barry Soetoro) is not capable of changing his name. So is it his black half that can't change that, or his white half?
As light as I'm making of this imbecilic comment, it's important to understand: the Democrats really believe this. They really believe that Blacks and Hispanics can only function with government help, that Blacks and Hispanics really are shiftless, lazy, and incompetent. Republicans believe they're people just like Whites and Asians, and can succeed at anything if they'll put in the time, work, and effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)