Tag Archives: kkk

The race card gone wild

Abortion is one area where the Left is oddly quiet about playing the race card.  Perhaps that is because abortions kill unwanted black human beings at a rate three times that of whites and Hispanics at a rate double that of whites, and the Leftist dream of taxpayer-funded abortions would take those rates even higher.

That is, they were quiet about it until now.  In a climate where even saying the word “Chicago” is considered racist, Banning Abortion is Now, Apparently, Racism.  You just can’t make these things up.

Right. You caught us, Brian. That’s exactly what the GOP is attempting to do, to make sure there are more Black, Latino, and other minority children not being aborted so that the country will have more Black, Latino, and other minorities because we hate Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities. I find myself rubbing my forehead after writing that, considering what Liberals feel are their deep policy positions.

If anything, pushing for more abortion on demand is racist. Consider that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger was an avowed racist pushing eugenics to reduce the population of Blacks, other minorities, and “defectives.” She spoke in front of the KKK.

So in a Liberal Logic 101 way, remember this:

  • Saying “Chicago” is a code word for racism when used to describe the President’s politics.
  • Having a #1 priority that results in blacks being killed at three times the rate of whites is not racist.  But opposing it is!

Roundup

Why do blacks give 90% support to pro-choice politicians?  Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, was buddies with the KKK and aggressively sought to reduce the black population.  But you can totally trust Planned Parenthood today — er, uh, except for their serial statutory rape cover-ups and their destruction of blacks at a rate three times that of whites . . .

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.

PP still uses “religious” leaders as useful idiots in advancing their culture of promiscuity and death.

Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings Hasn’t Been Fired Yet? — Nope. (Hat tip: The Other McCain)

This isn’t a gay/straight issue. It’s a *creepy, pervvy, cultural Marxist who recommends hardcore kiddie porn to school aged kids being put in charge of “Safe Schools” by Obama and their creepy defenders (Media Mutters)* issue.

How PBS uses your tax dollars to distort the evidence for evolution — they use selective images to imply that the appearance of similar embryonic shapes at a point in time somehow prove macro-evolution.  They should be de-funded for this and many other reasons.  If their supporters can’t keep them afloat without taxing those who oppose them then they should die off — you know, that survival of the fittest thing.  Funny how the evolutionists once again aren’t living consistently with their worldview.

What viewers may not know—and PBS does not tell them—is that the interactive exercise shows embryos midway through development. The earliest stages are systematically omitted.

Ann Coulter on airline security

An alien from the planet “Not Politically Correct” would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: “You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader — but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. … What? … What did I say?”

A great response to the canard that people who leave their spouses to pursue same-sex relationships are “brave”

  • There’s nothing brave about marrying a woman when you know you prefer men.
  • There’s nothing brave about being unfaithful to her with men.
  • There’s nothing brave about taking solemn vows that you know you’re not likely to be able to keep.
  • There’s nothing brave about telling your teammates when you know that if any of them express disapproval, warn you of the serious health consequences or even crack a joke they’ll be visited by the police and accused of a hate crime.
  • There’s nothing brave about breaking your wife’s heart.
  • There’s nothing brave about saying you’ve always been in love with her and are still in love with her when you plainly don’t understand what it means.
  • There’s nothing brave about putting ‘the way I want to live my life’ above everybody else’s hurt.
  • There’s nothing brave about treating sex as if it’s the most powerful thing in life that cannot be resisted and somehow justifies whatever you want to do.

PZ Myers is predictably confused about morality.  Again.  As with many postmoderns and atheists he insists there is no universal morality but can’t go three sentences without making moral claims.  In this case, he can’t even finish a single sentence without contradicting himself. 

In the absence of a god-given absolute morality, all that matters is how we treat one another in this one life we have. What flows naturally to me is not brutality, which requires an absence of awareness of the suffering of others, but recognition of the fact that my fellow human beings really are my equals: we’re all going to die, we only have these few brief decades of life, and who am I to deny someone else the same opportunities I’ve been given?

Who “gave” PZ those opportunities?  Things don’t give things, persons give things.  And of course, he is pro-abortion.  What a wonderful way to “treat one another in this one life we have.”

Pro-Obama = anti-black

And pro-Mccain / Palin = pro-black.  Really.  Here’s why.

I think McCain’s economic, defense, energy and other plans will ultimately be better for blacks, but even if they won’t the title is still true.

There are two indisputable facts to consider:

  1. Abortions will increase under an Obama administration.  Obama clearly stated that his top priority as President would be to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would effectively eliminate every guideline, regulation, restriction, and limit on the multi-billion dollar abortion industry in the U.S. (see the video below).  He is on the record for being pro-partial birth abortion (he knows his “health” exception makes any restrictions meaningless) and wouldn’t even vote for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (his attempts to spin that have been thoroughly debunked).  Judges he would appoint would be pro-choice, so the legacy could last for decades.  The evidence is overwhelming: He is radically pro-legalized abortion with no restrictions.
  2. Abortion rates in the black community are three times that of whites.

In short, Obama is wildly pro-abortion and abortions are disproportionately high in black communities.

Therefore, with Obama you will have many more black human beings crushed and dismembered in the womb and blacks will be a smaller and smaller percentage of society than they would have otherwise.  And that means less influence over politics and such.

It is indisputable that Obama’s policies will result in many more dead black people.  I cannot see why people think his slightly different shade of melanin will more than make up for that.

Pro-choicers may or may not be racist, but their policies are bad for black human beings.  The facts speak loudly and clearly. 

  • Pro-choice = anti-black
  • Pro-life = pro-black
  • Pro-McCain / Palin = pro-black
  • Pro-Obama = anti-black

Guilt by Association

One of the things I’ve enjoyed about blogging is learning more about reasoning and how to avoid logical fallacies (flawed patterns of reasoning).  Most of us are guilty of using them at times, but with effort they can be avoided.  The results are better arguments and a more winsome approach. 

When people use these fallacies, deliberately or not, they are not only being unfair but it makes them look insecure.  After all, if your view is correct then why would you need to demonize people or use tricks? 

The guilt by association logical fallacy goes like this:

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

  1. It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
  2. Therefore P is false.

I encountered an example of this fallacy when reading a column on a theologically liberal pastor’s blog.  The author has some catch phrases he usually tags on to describe people.  We’re used to people using “liberal” or “conservative” as shortcuts, and many aren’t offended by that.  But this fellow is not too fond of the IRD and its representatives, so he writes things like:

“Tooley, who also writes for the radical right website FrontPage Magazine, is such an extremist that a couple of years ago the KKK republished one of his articles attacking minorities.”

Here’s the comment thread where I point out why that bit of information is a bad argument.  I had a little fun with him in the last comment.

Reverend, I’m not sure why you add the KKK bit when referring to Tooley. Just because they agreed with his opinion that homosexual behavior doesn’t confer civil rights doesn’t mean that he supports their broader agenda, as you clearly imply.

This “guilt by association” trick could work the other way. How would you like it if people wrote this every time they quoted you: “The Reverend is such an extremist that he agrees with the KKK that it should be legal to crush and dismember innocent human African Americans in the womb.”

After all, that is technically true, isn’t it? You are pro-legalized-abortion, and the abortion rate in African American communities is 3x that of whites. I could be mistaken, though . . . perhaps the KKK members – even with their reprehensible broader views – might not all be pro-legalized-abortion, even for African Americans.

I thought we were supposed to be lifting people up, not tearing them down.

The KKK is a hate group. They don’t republish a material that reflects anything but hate. Mark Tooley preaches hate. No surprise the KKK is a fan of his work. If you want to associate yourself with his writings go ahead. But my advice is to find a nicer crowd to hang with.

Dear Reverend,

You missed my point and have even tried to add me to your guilt by association mix.

I think we all agree that the KKK is hateful. And I know you don’t like the IRD. That wasn’t the point. (I think people are capable of reading their website and determining whether they support their church reform movements.)

Even if I didn’t support the IRD I would still take issue with your superfluous attack on Tooley. You seem to find it easier to attack the person with an alleged association to the KKK than to deal with his arguments. And your mention that Tooley was “attacking minorities” implies that he was anti-black, not anti-civil rights for homosexuals. How’s that for bearing a truthful witness?

“No surprise the KKK is a fan of his work.”

The KKK is probably a fan of your pro-legalized-abortion views, since that keeps the murder of roughly 2,000 African Americans per day nice and legal. But I ask again, would it be fair for me to associate you with them?

My question was whether a pastor of the extra-tolerant, lift people up instead of tearing them down, we-welcome-everyone denomination would continue such rhetoric (this KKK example is just one of many). Thanks for the answer.

P.S. “Mark Tooley preaches hate.”

Indeed. But I can really feel the love coming from your writing.

Actually, the KKK has published statements about how much they dislike my site. They don’t republish my material because I don’t walk the path they do. Tooley hates people. His wants to deny people their basic civil rights. No surprise the Klan likes his views. Wouldn’t it have been nice is you had taken this opportunity to repudiate their views on the treatment of gays and lesbians in or society instead of defending Tooley… Did you not condemn their hated-based rhetoric and public policy stances because you agree with them? Or did you just forget to express your support for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people into our society? You don’t agree with Tooley and the Klan, do you?

Once again you have ignored my point, changed the subject and made a personal attack by implying that anyone who doesn’t agree with your views is hateful. I appreciate you publishing my comments, though, because I think people can see through this.

Since you don’t appear to be interested in real dialogue and your main method of communication is to employ logical fallacies (straw man arguments, guilt by association, ad hominem attacks), I’m going to focus my commentary on this topic on my blog instead. You are welcome there, though. I try to stay on topic and deal with the arguments themselves.

In fact, I think I’ll do a series on logical fallacies, passive-aggressiveness, hypocrisy and the intellectual bankruptcy of liberal theology. I’ll never run out of material. Thanks!

Regards,
Neil (who disagrees with the KKK and The Reverend that it should be legal to murder African Americans in the womb)