Obama Disgracing His Racial Ancestors
What a sick irony to realize that the first man sharing Douglass' race to occupy the Oval Office embodies the very dark spirit of oppression that generations of black Americans suffered to overcome, and that if left unchallenged, threatens the lives and liberties of all men.Yeah, tiny humans deserve the same natural rights as everyone else. We should be offering tiny humans their own tiny Ten Commandments plaques, their own tiny Mosque-free parcels of land, and their own tiny assault weapons. Yes, even though these humans may be only the size of a pinhead and have no brains, hearts, or other organs, they are being whipped by plantation slave masters and forced to harvest tiny bales of cotton.
For in our day, the same shroud of ignorance that once deceived corrupt minds into believing that one race of humans could be denied their natural rights and treated as the legal property of masters prevails again. It exists in the crooked and depraved notion that tiny humans can be denied their natural rights and treated as the legal property of their mothers.
Appallingly, this slavish mindset is not only accepted by America's first black president, it is celebrated. On the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that overturned precedent in all 50 states and ushered in a return of the plantation owners' ideology, Barack Obama took the time to honor its legacy. [...] And as his lips dripped with the euphemistic language of reproductive rights and fundamental liberties, he could no more hide the heinous butchery of abortion than his southern progenitors could hide their abusive bull whips by speaking of states' rights and nullification.So, while Obama is shaming his slave progenitors by forcing embryos to mow the White House lawns, he is honoring his southern bull ship-wielding progenitors through his labor practices. But still he is decried for disgracing his ancestors!
Only a man terrifyingly unmoved by the injustices perpetrated against his own ancestors could, just a century and a half later, facilitate even worse atrocities without a hint of remorse.Because, as stated previously, forcing tiny humans to labor in the fields all day is much worse than making real humans do the same, because fetuses are so much smaller, and so it's a lot harder for them to carry the bales.
Intellectual honesty demands that we face a harsh and uncomfortable reality: Barack Obama -- our first black president -- has chosen to take up the whipYes, you should see how he treats those cabinet members! Finally somebody has the guts to go on the record ... no, wait, Peter is talking about fetuses again, and how Obama whips them until they write a passable State of the Union address.
against his fellow man.
As he commits himself to what Douglass called the denial of justice, the perpetuation of ignorance, and the organized conspiracy to degrade his fellow countrymen, it can rightly be concluded that Barack Obama disgraces his office, his ancestors, and his place in the eternal struggle for the rights of man.All that because he said that we should "recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." Plus, he never calls his dead ancestors, never visits them, and never sends them a card on Dead Ancestors Day What a disappointment he must be!
UPDATE: I like how the Blogger ad chosen to accompany this piece is for "Pro-Life Checks" for "Mr. and Mrs. Prolifer," featuring photos of cute infants. They are just the thing for when you want to purchase things that the next generation will be paying for, like tax cuts for the rich and a repeal of enviromental protection laws!
Yeah, because there is nothing more positive for African Americans than to make sure African American women are forced to bear unwanted children. The slavery analogy really only works at all, like so much about anti-choice rhetoric, when you consider that ten week old fetuses are valuable persons but women are not.
Fuck off, Peter, there's a good prick. If you want to help prevent some abortions, how about you work to make sure women aren't deprived of health care and equal wages and child care and all those other supports that might make the difference to whether a woman can afford to have a(nother) child? Because women who terminate their pregnancies for reasons of financial stability probably don't actually want to have abortions.
And more to the point, they are the only ones you are not bullying or patronizing or deceiving or victimizing by preventing their determined course of action.
"If you want to help prevent some abortions, how about you work to make sure women aren't deprived of health care and equal wages and child care and all those other supports that might make the difference to whether a woman can afford to have a(nother) child?"
But how else are we supposed to make the dirty sluts feel the appropriate shame for having dirty, dirty sex if we can't force them to have children in squalor?
Regarding the Google ad... I saw that same ad on Pandagon while reading Amanda's scathing take-down of the odious HR3. It did make me crack a smile. What, precisely, is the point of key-word driven ads if half the time they show up on sites diametrically opposed to the product?
Once again, Fred Clark has the rebuttal all tied up already.
What, precisely, is the point of key-word driven ads if half the time they show up on sites diametrically opposed to the product?
That's the trouble with advertising on political sites. When they mentioned HR3 at Rumproast, they ended up with links to personal pages from couples seeking adoption. Course, they also had a banner ad for a Norwegian-language version of a dating site, so...
Who am I to quibble, but..?I will anyway.
One had the impression that Prez Obama was the product of a white Kansas lady and a Kenyan father. So, exactly what slave ancestors are we referring to here? Or do all African-Americans acquire them in the very womb?
@ Suezboo: Why let trivial things like "facts" or "reality" get in the way of a good character assassination?
Mr. and Mrs. Prolifer sound like Dickens characters, especially if you pronounce their name with the emphasis on the first syllable.
Mr. Prolifer is a wealthy clergyman who visits slums to harangue the working classes about Hell. He believes that surgery is the work of the Devil. Mrs. Prolifer serves on a large number of committees to convert the African tribes. They have 17 neglected children.
At the end of the novel, Mr. Prolifer dies of appendicitis. His fortune is entailed away and the family loses everything and goes to live in the slums, except for his youngest daughter who marries a doctor.
@ Suezboo: Damn you beat me to it. Doesn't this piece then contradict the birther argument? Or is consistency also something not to get in the good character assassination?
Post a Comment