“Conservatism Is a White People’s Movement”

John Derbyshire, recently fired from the National Review, a popular conservative magazine, for being too racist (yeah, I guess it is possible), is now finally free to say what he really thinks.

And this loudly-self-proclaimed Conservative has a thing or two to say. On a white supremacist blog he now writes for.

Conservatism. . .is a white people’s movement, a scattering of outliers notwithstanding.

Always has been, always will be. I have attended at least a hundred conservative gatherings, conferences, cruises, and jamborees: let me tell you, there ain’t too many raisins in that bun. I was in and out of the National Review offices for twelve years, and the only black person I saw there, other than when Herman Cain came calling, was Alex, the guy who runs the mail room.

Nail on the head. But why is this?

[C]onservative ideals like self-sufficiency and minimal dependence on government have no appeal to underperforming minorities—groups who, in the statistical generality, are short of the attributes that make for group success in a modern commercial nation.

Oh, I see.

He deliberates what name to give to himself and other “true” non-establishment conservatives.

I actually think “White Supremacist” is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don’t see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.

Haha, history just “came up with” colonization, imperialism, and genocide! How about that! And whites just happened to benefit from it. What a beneficial coincidence for John Derbyshire.

Normally, I wouldn’t want to participate in making such people’s voices louder than they already are. I choose to highlight occasional instances, like this one, to remind complacent people that overt RACISM STILL EXISTS. And in very prominent places.

Not to mention all the less in-your-face kinds. But that’s what I usually talk about on this blog anyway.

“Saving” Babies from the Horrors of an African Childhood

Let us join Nancy French in congratulating herself for saving a baby from the horrific prospect of being raised in Africa. French wrote an article entitled I’m a White Republican Raising a Black Child: Deal With It to raise awareness about how awesome she is.

When I hear this self-congratulatory rhetoric around transracial and/or international adoption, I always pause and think. The self-congratulations typically come from middle, upper-middle, and upper-class heterosexual white families who have adopted a child who is of color and/or born in another country. There is typically lots of applause from other whites for their “good deed”. The assumption being that a middle-to-upper class white upbringing must be superior to other kinds of upbringing, and that by allowing a normally-inferior individual into the white club, a meritorious act has taken place. This is part of what is called the White Savior Complex. It is a relic from colonialism, when whites felt it was their mission to spread across the planet and “improve” the “backwards” races. The colonial mindset is still very present with us, as when this author insinuates adventurism with phrases like: “poverty stricken African tribal area” and their savior status by rescuing a “starving, abandoned girl” from such a terrible place. As I recall from grade school, Africa is actually broken up into political units known as “countries”, but French is kept very busy letting the world know about her good deeds that she can hardly be expected to know unimportant details about insignificant parts of the world.

Then I start to wonder about the big picture. French’s adopted daughter has a biological mother and father. Where are they? Why are they so poor? Why couldn’t they keep their child? Do they have rights? Isn’t there any value to the culture she was born into and taken away from? Why are so many African nations “poverty-stricken”? How are the world’s dominant countries implicated in this poverty?

I just happened upon an article about the struggles of Congolese mothers against the backdrop of political violence: A Congo Mother Survives Cannibalism to Save Her Children: Why Her Photo Matters. Interestingly, the article notes that much of the conflict was instigated by European colonists. Now mothers have to protect their children from cannibalism. If only French could adopt even more African children.

The right to raise your own children is a fundamental human right, and a pillar of the Reproductive Justice movement. Yet it is easier for white Americans to reframe themselves not as colonialists with serious responsibilities to other countries we have impoverished, but as pure, loving saviors who just want to help the children. Do we really have a right to take these children that trumps our responsibility to ensure that all mothers enjoy the right to raise the children they birthed?

Obviously, I am not the first one to have these thoughts. I would recommend further reading, starting with these articles:
The Lie We Love
Black Kids in White Houses
All Your Children Are Belong to Us

Another question that just popped into my head: If French’s daughter had instead grown up in Ethiopia and tried to immigrate to America as an adult to find a better life (the better life that French hopes to offer her by raising her), would French support her access to American residency? Or is it only by fulfilling French’s need to have another child that her daughter earns her right to live in America?

Thank God: Liberal Bias to Be Removed from Bible

If I spent the next week typing “LOL”, and taking only two 15-minute breaks a day and sleeping only three hours a night, I still would not be able to properly express my reaction to this amazing news.

bible & flagProfessors and feminists have emasculated and dumbed-down the Holy Bible, and inserted their socialist agenda, you see. To be precise, “The committee in charge of updating the bestselling version, the NIV, is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook.”

Vomit-worthy, if you ask me. Who wants anyone with higher education, or who holds the opinion that women are people, to be translating ancient Greek and Hebrew texts? Disgusting. Next thing you’ll tell me is that there was a ghey in the translating room.

In response, the Conservative Bible Project has begun to translate the Bible in accordance with conservative principles.

Does it matter to these Bible-rewriters that the Bible was originally written before socialism, feminism, conservatism or liberalism were invented? No it does not. Not one wit. Because emasculating socialist feminist professors can time travel. Satan taught them how.

I mean, are you not troubled to learn that:

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the “social justice” movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word “volunteer” is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word “comrade” is used three times, “laborer(s)” is used 13 times, “labored” 15 times, and “fellow” (as in “fellow worker”) is used 55 times.

Or that liberals have somehow inserted forgiveness into the Bible in such a way that it sounds desirable:

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

Or that liberals totally made up John 7:53-8:11, where Jesus tells the angry crowd about to stone an adulteress, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”:

Amid this scholarship, why is the emphasis on this passage increasing? The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. Liberals cite this passage to oppose the death penalty, a misuse that has been criticized.

Actually, this part of the Conservative Bible Project gets a bit scary, as the article goes on to say:

The Mosaic laws clearly state death as a punishment for sin. So the argument that an individual must be perfect is not relevant. The God-ordained government has the responsibility for punishment.

My quibbles with the godly rewriters of the Bible on this point:
A) Um, doesn’t “Mosaic” law say something like “Thou shalt not kill”? Or maybe I’m getting the Bible mixed up with something I read in the liberal media, like a NYT article.

B) Are we talking about a theocracy that kills people for sinning against the Conservative Bible?

C) Where do I sign up for that!?

The Conservative Bible will also remove the liberal bias that squelched Jesus’ true message of free-market capitalism, which is explained in Conservative Translation Guideline #7: “Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning.”

And, just a little FYI, while you were off reading the Communist Manifesto or killing babies, a new language has developed, the “conservative language,” and the Bible must be translated into it posthaste.

Additional less important guidelines include… recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well.

Is this an example of Poe’s Law? I.e. that it is vanishingly impossible to distinguish real fundamentalism from parody.

HAVE YOU HUGGED A CHRISTO-FASCIST TODAY?

I Am Bored With “Socialist!”

Hasn’t the epithet “Socialist!” run out of steam yet?  I am so bored of hearing it used to describe anyone left of hard right.

I ask my question rhetorically, of course, because we all know that it isn’t going anywhere. If someone would like to submit to me a history of its use in American political discourse, I’d sure appreciate it.

Socialism: Throttling the CountryI believe that we, that is, all of us who are ever tarred with the Socialist! brush, allow it to be an effective weapon against us. It can be used effectively against anything: bank regulation, anti-pollution efforts, public housing, bailouts, universal health care, labor organizing, and now, apparently, being gay. And why? Because as soon as anyone even slightly liberal hears it, and especially if that person identifies as a Democrat, they recoil in horror and emphatically deny the defamatory “accusation”. We try and think of ways to explain beliefs, positions, or policies to avoid accusations of that term. Our reaction to deployment of this term has not gone unnoticed by the opposition. Now that we have invested their weapon with power, they will continue to use it until we take that power away again.

What does the insult “Socialist!” even mean to the person who hurls it? The same people who use it will often simultaneously and without a hint of hesitation add accusations of Communist!, Nazi!, Maoist! and Fascist! to the mix. Apparently many are unaware of the separate meanings of each of them, or the actual definition of socialism. There has been definition creep. Now all these terms seem to mean “any person who advocates government action not approved of by conservatives.”

Continue reading

Tea Party Protesters Inadvertently Protest for More & Better Government Services

Hang em HighReally, this headline could sum up much of what Tea Partiers are about. They want “government” to stay away from government programs like Medicaid. They want the government to pave the planet for their cars, to police our borders, to hunt down “illegals”, to provide fire protection, to respond to disasters, to keep paying their SSI, to pay for foreign wars, and etc. Just so long as poor people, “illegals”, non-English speakers, and non-whites don’t accrue any benefits.

In a microcosm of their ideological incoherence, some Tea Partiers (do you see how I use the nice term? I am so big-hearted.) who were in DC for the big 9/12 protest are angry that the government didn’t provide them with enough publicly-funded transit for them to effectively protest publicly-funded health care and the like.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Texas Republican on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Washington’s Metro system complaining that the taxpayer-funded subway system was unable to properly transport protesters to the rally to protest government spending and expansion.“These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration,” [Rep. Kevin] Brady [of Texas] wrote.

“These participants, whose tax dollars were used to create and maintain this public Kevin Bradytransit system, were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capital did not make a great effort to simply provide a basic level of transit for them.”

Just like the government should, um, not make a great effort to provide a basic level of something even more basic to life – health care? I don’t get it.

And here’s a precious kicker. Brady is upset that some of the most vulnerable members of the group, when provided insufficient help by the government, were forced to turn to expensive private market alternatives they could barely afford… i.e. taxis.

Brady says in his letter to Metro that overcrowding forced an 80-year-old woman and elderly veterans in wheelchairs to pay for cabs.

THIS IS KILLING ME! I mean, what is government funding for, if not to fund conservatives’ crusade against government funding?

My brain hurts.

Right Wing Exremist

Amazing yet true pictures from the DC Tea Party protest found by googling.

Fear of Blacks Used by Conservatives to Play Working Class Whites in Health Care Debates

Thank you soulbrother v.2 for this insightful piece. He explains the connection between whiteness being used to convince poor white farmers to stop protesting against rich landowners alongside poor black farmers in the 1800s, and whiteness being used to play working class white people to protest against health care for the poor. (Almost twice as many white people than black people are impoverished in the USA.)

White SlaveryLooking at the debates through a race lens, things like a town hall participant attacking a poster of Rosa Parks and people comparing health care for the poor to white slavery start to make some sense. Very weird sense, but the trail of bigotry begins to come clear.

And yes, the poster-holder specified white slavery. What do you think that’s supposed to mean?

Monica at TransGriot sez the good white folks at the town halls are protesting…

…at the behest of conservative K Street lobbying firms, Faux News, right wing hate radio, HMO’s who want to stay between you and your doctor and continue to make obscene profits off the current broken system and the GOP who gets paid mad loot to thwart any meaningful legislative reform as they’ve done for decades.

Once again you information challenged people are being played, manipulated, hoodwinked and bamboozled again to vote against your own economic interests because you’re ‘scurred’ of the current occupant of the White House.

And Did You Know, “57% of Republicans either believes or is uncertain about the veracity of the “death panel” claim”?

Now, where ever would they get such an idea? Could it in any way be related to the fact that 65% of Republicans believe Fox News is reliable or that:

Even more interesting, perhaps, is how many Republicans only get their info from Fox, as compared to the other cable networks. A surprising 74% of GOPers “never” watch CNN, and an even higher amount, 89%, never watch MSNBC.

?

“Terrorist fist-jab”, “secret lesbian high school gangs”, birther-movement fueling Fox News. Is. Considered. Reliable by these people.

Sooooo…. is this health care “debate” becoming the 21st century elite’s attempt to divide and conquer the disempowered by race like innumerable incidents in the past? If so, they are showing remarkable success. Of course, there always seems to be enough white people who are eager to find a new excuse to be publicly racist, and politicians seem quite willing to dog whistle them to the fore at the slightest indication they may be useful.

Whaaa…?

Death panels?

A euthanasia mandate?

The thought that it is “downright evil” to provide health care to the poor?

Linking health care coverage for the poor to Nazism?

“Keep your government hands off my Medicare”?

True fascism… is happening in this country today”?

“Hitler…called his program the final solution. I kind of wonder what we’re going to call ours”?

And then there’s this, which also leaves me dumbstruck:

During the town hall, one conservative activist turns to his fellow attendees and asks them to raise their hands if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Almost all the hands shot up. Rep Green quickly turned the question on the audience and asked, “How many of you have Medicare?” Nearly half the attendees raised their hands, failing to note the irony.

At another point, a small business owner who supported health reform asks the audience how many people in this room “do not have health insurance of some kind.” Only one hand seemed to be raised. “I think the people who are objecting,” she noted, “are the people who have insurance.”

Homeless Man Not Poor Enough for Malkin

Food Kitchen

This picture has conservative pundit Michelle Malkin in a tizzy. She laughs at it as evidence of the failure of the “liberal” value of serving the poor.

Why? Because the homeless man Ms. Obama is serving has a cell phone. Therefore, he is not poor “enough” to deserve a free meal, therefore he is “working the system,” and Michelle Obama is “enabling” him. I find it incredible that conservatives find a First Woman serving the poor to be insult-worthy.

Michelle MalkinMalkin laughs at the idea that a homeless person could obtain a phone, though there are programs out there for exactly this purpose: “Some folks are wondering where the cell phone bills get sent. The answer is obvious: ACORN headquarters.” She mocks the idea that a homeless person would need a phone to have any hope of finding work: “The liberals’ argument is that they need cell phones to get jobs. Do they need Blackberry Pearls?!” I don’t think that’s a liberal argument. I think it’s an obvious argument. It seems she can’t quite get her mind around the idea of a poor person trying to find a job, because it contradicts her set-in-stone belief that the poor are poor because they are lazy.

Exactly how destitute do you have to be for Malkin to consider you “worthy” of help? She has previously mocked an elderly black woman who lived in her car for saying to Obama that she just wanted a kitchen of her own. What else does Malkin think the poor don’t deserve? More importantly, why?

What the hell is wrong with Malkin? Rarely do we see a person so publicly gloat over their economic privilege, and use their prominent position to further crush the downtrodden. And in a time of terrible recession as well- nice job Malkin. I bet you claim to have “family values.” I bet you tell your readers that liberals have no morals.

Her confident assumption that she deserves a kitchen, a cell phone, a home, regular meals, and a great job, while poor people, by virtue of being poor, do not, makes me think that she must avidly read Ayn Rand before going to bed every night. I would even call her righteous derision of the poor Rand-esque, except that she would probably consider it a compliment.

Who is that American flag in her picture waving for? Her. Because she deserves it. For her job security, for her above-average income, she deserves all the riches, the services, the amenities, the possessions America can offer her.

H/t Womanist Musings

Don’t Understand Why Watermelon Jokes Are Offensive?

Whitehouse WatermelonMayor Dean Grose (R) of Los Alamitos has resigned and stepped down from the city council after forwarding a racist email to coworkers.

Grose claimed he was “unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons,” though, as many bloggers have pointed out, no one can figure out what the “joke” is supposed to be unless you take that stereotype into account.

Los Alamitos businesswoman and city volunteer Keyanus Price, blew the whistle on this behavior after receiving the email from the mayor, making his action public.

“I have had plenty of my share of chicken and watermelon and all those kinds of jokes,” Price told The Associated Press. “I honestly don’t even understand where he was coming from, sending this to me. As a black person receiving something like this from the city-freakin’-mayor—come on.”

Well, certain conservatives are outraged that a black woman dared to speak up against this racism.

If you just can’t figure out what the deal is with watermelons, PostBourgie will explain it to you. Thoroughly.

Promiscuous Women Should Be Punished with HIV+ Babies

SchultheisRepublican Colorado State Senators are really working hard to outstrip Utah State Senator Chris Buttars on the mind-boggling ignorant bigotry.

Colorado State Senator Dave Schultheis had some choice words about a bill that would require HIV testing for pregnant women. Obviously, he is against this bill.

The Colorado Independent reports:

Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.”

Listen to some of his words here.

He went on to say: “What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that. The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

This is a state senator who believes that expectant mothers should not be tested for an incurable disease that could effect their child for life, because it is his opinion that HIV is contracted through “promiscuity” and therefore an HIV+ baby is the proper punishment for such a woman.

Let’s leave aside Schultheis’ obviously problematic belief that HIV is the result of promiscuity. Let’s think about the baby here. Schultheis is a Republican with warped beliefs about sex, so I’d say it’s a good bet that he is familiar with the “Culture of Life” bullshit and the anti-abortion movement. Purportedly, people who are fans of these movements care about the baybeez. Per usual, when it comes down to protecting children or shaming sluts, it appears that Schultheis would rather see babies born with HIV than allow a slut to get away with her slutty ways without being punished with a terminally ill child. An inspiring ideology, really.

But Wait! That’s not all that’s going down in Colorado! Oh no, it gets better (or worse, depending on your perspective.) Continue reading

Old Hand, New Wave

Resounding electoral loss by choice of the American people has had hilarious effects upon Conservatives. The most laughable one is the apparent consensus that instead of doing anything different, they should just call old ideas by new names.

We’ve all heard about Michael Steele’s aspiration to bring conservatism to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”

And we’re not supposed to say “religious right” anymore, because mysteriously that phrase has “become synonymous with extremism“. It’s “socially conservative evangelicals” from now on.

Here’s another one: economic patriotism. I’m not sure, but I think that’s supposed to mean “fiscal conservatism.” Or “be generous with your neighbors,” but that just doesn’t make sense in the context.

How about “Anti-Species Syndrome”? Well, according to wack-o organization America Forever, anti-species syndrome is the preferred term for “homosexual.” I know, I know, it doesn’t make sense. DO NOT ask me to explain it.

For good measure, “social justice” is now “anti-Americanism” and “community organizer” is “socialist propagandist”. It’s amazing to me that conservatives have found a way to vilify a profession that is dedicated to improving the lives of the least fortunate Americans, and the general concept motivating such work. So they don’t sound as freakishly heartless as all that, rebranding was necessary.

If you know of any rebranded Conservative terms, please leave them in the comments!

Greatest Power Grab Since the War of Northern Aggression

Incredible!

I am a reader of Angry Black Bitch. I enjoy her perspective, voice, and commentary. But I also have a secret additional affection for her: she lives in St Louis, my birth-town and current location of not one but TWO of my brothers.

She often covers Missouri news that really takes me back to my Midwestern upbringing.

How about this one?

A certain Missouri Representative Bryan Stevenson (R-Webb City) took to the floor and declared the not introduced so not really in question and certainly not a pressing issue if it ever does get introduced FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] the “greatest power grab by the federal government since the War of Northern Aggression.”

Oh yes he did!

He compared a hypothetical federal law protecting Choice to Lincoln’s decision to save the Union and end slavery. Negatively.

A revealing hand-tip indeed.

Oh, to those of you who aren’t familiar, the War of Northern Aggression is the preferred term for the Civil War amongst Southerners who long for ye good olde days of codified white supremacy and black enslavement. Before that evil “power grab” by Lincoln.

Makes sense, I guess, that someone who still rues the end of slavery would also be so terrified of any lessening of our tradition of female servitude. Oh no, what about the patriarchy!

Hear the words from the horse’s mouth:

Gays, Not Recession or Terrorism, Now Greatest Threat to America

Utah Republican State Senator Chris Buttars is in the news again. I wrote about his antics previously when he supported a bill to mandate that all Utah businesses greet their customers during December with “Merry Christmas” only.

Think Progress has gotten ahold of a leaked interview with Buttars where, thinking his words would never be heard by the general public, he makes a plethora of rabid, factless statements about gay Utahans.

– To me, homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts! But I don’t care.

– They say, I’m born that way. There’s some truth to that, in that some people are born with an attraction to alcohol.

– They’re mean! They want to talk about being nice — they’re the meanest buggers I ever seen. It’s just like the Moslems. Moslems are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side. And the gays are totally taken over by the radical side.

– I believe that you will destroy the foundation of American society, because I believe the cornerstone of it is a man and a woman, the family. … And I believe that they’re, internally, they’re probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of. Yep, the radical gay movement.

The occasion of Buttars’ learned commentary? He was celebrating the defeat of several bills in the Utah state legislature that would have given a few rights to its gay citizens.

Listen for yourself.

UPDATE 2/20/09: Buttars has been removed from the Utah Senate Judiciary Committee due to these comments. Hooray!

Fear and Loathing of the Poor

While I am certain that the majority of people who identify themselves as Republican or conservative do not agree, Republicans with public platforms have been using them to trumpet their loathing of, and lack of empathy with, the less fortunate during this economic crisis.

I already mentioned conservative radio pundit Bill Cunningham and his brilliant statements which include: “The reason people are poor in America is not because they lack money, it’s because poor people in America lack values, character, and the ability to work hard.”

Now Womanist Musings and Feministe tipped me off to more of this conservative meme.

The following comments are reactions to the words of Henrietta Hughes, a homeless elderly black woman who pleaded with Obama for housing solutions when he visited her town of Fort Myers. Hughes currently lives in a car.

Michelle Malkin, Townhall commentator, had these words to say:

If she had more time, she probably would have remembered to ask Obama to fill up her gas tank, too.

… Woe unto ye unbelievers in Big Government who cling to what Obama derided as “ideological rigidity.”

Well, pardon my unbending belief in fairness and personal responsibility, but why should my tax dollars go to feed the housing entitlement beast?

…It’s sacrilegious to say it in the Age of Obama, but it needs to be said: Home ownership is not an entitlement. Credit is not a civil right. Your property-value preservation is not my problem.

But shelter from the elements should be a right! This is America. Jesus, it feels like that statement doesn’t have meaning anymore. Since when did it come in vogue to primly display your belief that the less fortunate should be thrown to the wolves so publicly? In ye good olde days, one at least had the tact to reserve such sentiments for the country club and yacht parties.

Anyway, Limbaugh couldn’t wait to get his hate on either:

All right, here’s the woman. It’s really sad. I mean, as an American, this is embarrassing, and it’s sad, but there’s a reason why — there’s a reason why this woman takes her one chance to talk to the president of the United States and ask and beg for a car and a kitchen.

…Do you hear the applause when the woman says she needed a car, a new vehicle, a new house? “Yeah.” And when Obama, “A lot of people like you.” “Yeah.” So we can sit here all day long and we can wax eloquent about how this guy comes off and how he’s just wandering aimlessly, incoherent, but these people watching him last night, listening today, they think he’s going to get them a job.

I bet this kind of punditry really resonates with the average American. As unemployment, foreclosures and poverty sky-rocket, I’m sure that Americans are comforted to hear these empathetic words emanating from their favorite pundits. Glad they all have their fingers on the pulse of Middle America.

Women Haters Busy in Kansas

My new favorite guy to hate, Kansas State Rep Lance Kinzer, is at it again! No longer is it enough for him to advocate that women be forced to listen to the fetal heartbeat before being “allowed” to have the medical procedure they scheduled.

No, while that sure-to-be-vetoed bill is languishing, he has moved on to newer, shinier attacks on abortion.

Like this one, chronicled in the Wichita Eagle:

TOPEKA – Abortion opponents touted a bill Tuesday that would change how doctors report the reasons for late-term abortions.

“We want to make sure we know the actual medical diagnosis,” Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, the bill’s sponsor, told House Federal and State Affairs Committee.

The proposal also would allow a woman or certain members of her family to file civil lawsuits against an abortion provider they suspected had violated the law. The law would apply to the father if he is married to the woman and to her parents if she is under 18 years old when the suspected violations occurred.

Michael Schuttloffel, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, praised the bill… He also praised a proposed change in the written information that a woman is required to be given at least 24 hours before an abortion is performed.

Under the bill, the [new] written information would have to state that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being.”

Continue reading

The Republican Party & Race

Michael Steele’s election to be chairman of the Republican National Committee is an amazing step in the right direction for the GOP. The man speaks publicly about race, for christssake! But, just as electing Obama president does not mean we live in Postracial Wonderland, Steele’s election does not mean the GOP has solved its racial problems.

Not like you’d get that impression from reading Republican/conservative blogs. Not only are *some* repubs patting themselves on the back and declaring (again) the end of racism, many are crowing about how eager they are for liberals to lob racial attacks at Steele, and, I guess, thereby making all liberals hypocrites, and making the Democratic Party the true bastion of racism.

I suppose that the GOP has spent less time on racial considerations than the Dems. (NOT as though liberals and Dems don’t have plenty of racial problems as well.) Perhaps they are still getting their sea legs on this matter… perhaps nuance will soon enter their discussions on race.

Or perhaps they just think that with Steele and Obama, discussions of race are moot, unnecessary, so over. Like matter and anti-matter colliding. Which is convenient, since the “race issue” seemed to hurt the GOP at the polls moreso than Dems. Of course they want it to be over.

Conservative pundits don’t want anyone to speculate that their sudden willingness to see more blacks in power may have been influenced by Obama’s amazing campaign and decisive victory, and with the changing demographics of America that indicate old-school bigotry is losing ground. Well, those pundits do want liberal pundits to say those things, so that they can turn around and accuse them of racism.

If Obama was an abysmal failure, if Obama lost to McCain, who would have been elected as Chairman of the RNC? We’ll never know. But I still wonder… are Palin and Steele reactions to HRC and BHO, or would Palin and Steele have appeared so prominently on the political landscape without them? Did Clinton and Obama’s popularity and viability shock them awake to a new reality, or were they already grasping that reality, already looking to support more women and POC in their ambitions to advance through the GOP ranks?

I feel like Steele’s leadership is already causing Republicans to address race through their dialogues with one another and personal reflection. If they no longer need a “Southern Strategy” of dog whistles and coded language to pull in votes, if racist whites are a diminishing bloc of little future import, will it be revealed that the racist white bloc was an excuse for subtler racism up top, or an obstacle to anti-racist GOP leaders who simply had to do what was necessary to win?

Here’s some Republican/conservative chatter regarding race:

Continue reading

Kansas Women Seeking Abortion May Be Required to Listen to Fetal Heartbeat

Photobucket
Women iz dum bitches

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

When will pro-lifers figure out that their fake “informed consent” attacks on abortion are ineffective? And that their real agenda is totally transparent?

Get a load of this.

A group of both Republicans and Democrats today introduced a bill related to abortion.

They call it the “Woman’s Right to Know and See” bill.

It would require doctors who use a sonogram to provide a copy of that sonogram to a woman considering an abortion.

It would also require that the woman be allowed to hear the fetal heartbeat.

Reminds me of what went down last year in Oklahoma.

My inside sources tell me that the slimy culprit behind this travesty is one Lance Kinzer, a conservative Kansas State Representative from Olathe. He apparently was also behind a failed attempt to repeal domestic partnerships in Lawrence, KS. Great pedigree.

My anonymous source commented: “So today he introduced the “Woman’s Right to Know and See” bill in the statehouse here in Kansas, which is just appalling. It pretty much forces, by law, doctors who are going to perform abortions in Kansas to take a sonogram, and show it to the woman. But oh no! It doesn’t stop there! This bill would ALSO FORCE (by law!!) the woman to listen to the fetus’ heartbeat. Just in case she wants to change her mind.”

According to anti-abortion websites, 16 states already have some of this breed of “Women’s Right to Know” legislation, including Pennsylvania, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Texas, Florida and Missouri. (Haven’t found a full list yet.) These laws are sold as “informed consent” for women seeking abortion.

“Folks who are pro-life and even folks who are pro-choice can agree on something, and that is that no one should have an abortion without having full and accurate information about the status of their pregnancy,” said Representative Lance Kinzer, who introduced the bill.

I believe that women should be fully informed about their options and the health and economic effects of all their choices. But in that I differ from Kinzer, who just doesn’t want women to have abortions at all. Who really thinks that women are so stupid that they don’t know what an abortion is? Who could possibly have escaped the incredibly shrill pro-life propaganda that saturates America? No woman chooses abortion without reflection. To claim that women are literally too dumb to understand that abortion is the removal of a fetus is insulting. He shows no interest in making sure women are “fully informed” about the effects of pregnancy and childbirth, which are proven to have significantly more serious health effects than abortion. I wonder why?

Women’s Right to Know laws are simply vehicles to legally coerce women to delay or decide against abortion- they are never supported by anyone who believes in a woman’s right to choose. There is no other medical procedure treated in this special manner, yet there is no stink about people getting their tonsils out without ‘informed consent’ or having breast augmentation without ‘informed consent’.

But Kinzer has struck upon a new fake Women’s Right to Know tactic: previously, such tactics have involved forcing doctors to read anti-abortion statements they disagree with to their patients, giving women anti-abortion written material, forcing women to review images of fetuses at different stages in development, and showing women ultrasound or sonogram images of their pregnancy. Kinzer has struck upon something new here with this fetal heartbeat business. The ONLY reason he would push this coercive and condescending measure into law would be as another attempt to interfere with and shame women who choose abortion.

Sick bastards over there in the Kansas State congress.

h/t Fally

UPDATE: More news coverage in Kansas today.

Lawrence-Journal World

Kansas City Star

Blackwell Against Stimulus Plan That Creates Jobs

Partisan hack Ken Blackwell has come out on Townhall against a stimulus plan that would create 600,000 jobs for Americans. Why? Because in a Democratic administration, people would feel thankful to Democrats for creating jobs, and therefore be more likely to vote for them later. And that’s not fair to Republicans. Really.

Of course, Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, so you can safely bet that anything coming out of his mouth is nothing but ideological parroting. I don’t know what it takes to become a senior fellow at the FRC, but I’m sure you’ve gotta show some serious disrespect for personal liberty and the value of equality to even be let in the door.

Mr. Blackwell’s article isn’t all nonsense, however. He makes legitimate, though predictably ideological, warnings about spending too much tax money, needlessly extending the bureaucracy to create more government jobs, etc. But it is rather unseemly, in a time of high unemployment and economic downturn, to whine that it’s not fair Democrats are creating all the jobs. Hey, your buddy Bush had eight years to create jobs, but didn’t get around to it. So if people are pissed and want change… well, they just might get it.

It’s good to know that certain conservatives will stick to their ideology so blindly that they will do so even to the detriment of the needs of the people. Oops, by good I mean mind-blowingly elitist.

I’m reminded of Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s definition of ideology: “Meaning in the service of power.”

But back to Blackwell:

Government doesn’t create value; it takes it from us as taxes. While a government job involves work and earns a paycheck, every government job is a burden on the private sector because it takes money away from the people.

Interesting opinion coming from a former employee of the government (Ohio Secretary of State… oh yeah, he was that guy). I guess while he is good enough for a government paycheck, us little people are not. But he does get prole points for pretending to care about “the people.”

BTW, who knew the government doesn’t create value? I guess it would be easier on businesses if we didn’t have paved roads, street lights, trash service, utilities, police protection, property rights, a legal system and public education to prepare youth for the job market. Personally, to protest unfair government intrusion into my private life, I refuse to follow traffic lights and signs, because those were created as a big government liberal conspiracy to control my thoughts and how I conduct my economic activities. I also pledge to drive without a license or insurance, as those too are intrusions on my right to do whatever the fuck I want and yet somehow never pay taxes. And to burn down my neighborhood library, which is a pinko testament to the excesses of wasteful government. Why do the masses need to be literate, anyway?

Fuck You Too, Liberals

Know Your Place

“Conservatism” in America’s politics means “Let’s keep the n*ggers in their place.” And “liberalism” means “Let’s keep the knee-grows in their place — but tell them we’ll treat them a little better; let’s fool them more, with more promises… the American black man only needed to choose which one to be eaten by, the “liberal” fox or the “conservative” wolf…
…in a wolf’s den, I’d always know exactly where I stood…

-Malcolm X

Fuck all ya’ll who stand ready to sell out someone’s human rights for the political expediency of your liberal goals. Fuck your carefully crafted non-bigot credentials that mean you are not to be criticized for bigoted actions. Your “but I’m a liberal” shield of immunity.

Your pragmatism means that we should sit quietly until you let us know when it is okay to be us again, now that more important parts of the agenda are out of the way.

Anyone else getting tired of liberals for whom the term means politely keeping the structures of oppression in place? (But one day real soon, we promise, you’ll get your turn to be equal. Trust us and wait quietly. Don’t cause a SCENE!)